You have wired ten thousand euros from London, New York or Singapore to start your French company, and the money is now sitting in a blocked account that nobody will touch. The bank asked for one more document, then went silent. The one-stop registration portal, the Guichet unique run by the INPI (Institut national de la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 industrielle, the French intellectual property and companies office), is waiting for the deposit certificate. Without that certificate there is no registration, without registration there is no Kbis \u2014 the official extract that works as your company’s identity card, issued by the greffe, the clerk’s office of the commercial court \u2014 and without the Kbis the funds stay frozen, you cannot invoice, and you cannot hire. For a foreign founder this is the most common way a French startup stalls before it even exists: not for lack of money, but because the capital is stuck between two counters. This guide explains, for a foreign-owned company doing business in France, how much capital you must actually pay on day one, where to deposit it and which certificate unlocks the file, what happens when you sign papers for a company that does not legally exist yet, what to do when a bank refuses to open the corporate account, and how to get the money back out once the Kbis arrives. Every rule below comes from the statute itself, from the official business portal, and from two court decisions that every foreign founder should know: the 29 November 2023 reversal of the Court of Cassation, the Cour de cassation, on acts signed for a company in formation, and the 6 July 2023 ruling of the Paris Court of Appeal on the right to an account against anti-money-laundering duties. If your situation is already urgent, the fastest route is described at the end of this article.<\/p>\n
French company law does not ask you to pay the full share capital on arrival, but it does ask for a serious first instalment, and the amount depends on the vehicle you chose. Our full comparison of vehicles is set out in our guide to choosing between an SAS and a SARL as a foreign founder<\/a>, and the figures below complete it. In an SAS (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e, the flexible joint-stock company most foreign founders pick) the rules of the SA (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 anonyme, the classic public limited company) apply unless the SAS chapter says otherwise, as Article L.227-1 of the Commercial Code<\/a> provides, and Article L.225-3 of the Commercial Code<\/a> states that “Le capital doit \u00eatre int\u00e9gralement souscrit. Les actions de num\u00e9raire sont lib\u00e9r\u00e9es, lors de la souscription, de la moiti\u00e9 au moins de leur valeur nominale.” In plain English: the capital must be fully subscribed, and cash shares must be paid up by at least half of their face value at subscription, the balance within five years of registration. In a SARL (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e, the private limited company with strictly framed shares) the entry ticket is lighter: Article L.223-7 of the Commercial Code<\/a> provides that “Les parts repr\u00e9sentant des apports en num\u00e9raire doivent \u00eatre lib\u00e9r\u00e9es d’au moins un cinqui\u00e8me de leur montant”, which means cash contributions must be paid up by at least one fifth, again with the balance due within five years of registration at the RCS (registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s, the trade and companies register). Contributions in kind must be paid in full immediately in both vehicles, and no new cash subscription is possible while the previous capital remains partly unpaid.<\/p>\n Once the founders have the money, it must be deposited quickly and in the right hands. Article R.223-3 of the Commercial Code<\/a> states: “Dans les huit jours de leur r\u00e9ception, les fonds provenant de la lib\u00e9ration des parts sociales sont d\u00e9pos\u00e9s pour le compte de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en formation et par les personnes qui les ont re\u00e7us \u00e0 la Caisse des d\u00e9p\u00f4ts et consignations, chez un notaire ou dans un \u00e9tablissement de cr\u00e9dit.” In practice, for a foreign founder, this means the funds go within eight days of their receipt to a notary (notaire) or a bank (\u00e9tablissement de cr\u00e9dit) acting as depositary, for the account of the company in formation. Note one trap the official business portal confirms: since 1 June 2021 the capital can no longer be deposited with the Caisse des d\u00e9p\u00f4ts et consignations, the public deposits institution, so a founder who read an old guide and walks there loses a week. The deposit can be made by bank cheque from a bank domiciled in France, by bank transfer, or in cash, and the articles of association (statuts) must record both the release of the shares and the deposit of the funds. The depositary then issues the decisive document: the certificate of deposit of funds (certificat ou attestation de d\u00e9p\u00f4t des fonds), without which the registration file cannot be sent to the Guichet unique. A founder may also give a written power of attorney to a mandated person (mandataire) \u2014 typically the lawyer or the accountant \u2014 to deposit the capital on the company’s behalf, which is often the practical answer when the founders live abroad and the bank wants a face it knows.<\/p>\n For money coming from outside France, three practical points decide whether the deposit takes days or months. First, the bank receiving the transfer must identify you and, where relevant, the beneficial owner (b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaire effectif, the living person who ultimately owns or controls the company), and verify those identities against written proof, as Article L.561-5 of the Monetary and Financial Code<\/a> requires: “1\u00b0 Identifient leur client et, le cas \u00e9ch\u00e9ant, le b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaire effectif au sens de l’article L. 561-2-2 ; 2\u00b0 V\u00e9rifient ces \u00e9l\u00e9ments d’identification sur pr\u00e9sentation de tout document \u00e9crit \u00e0 caract\u00e8re probant.” A passport alone is rarely enough for a foreign wire: expect demands for proof of address, company documents of the sending entity, and proof of the origin of the funds, such as tax returns or sale deeds. Second, keep the full paper trail of the transfer \u2014 SWIFT messages, debit advices, a stated purpose describing the subscription of the capital of the company in formation \u2014 because the same documents will be requested again at the account-opening stage and, if the file ever goes to court, they prove the date of the first deposit, from which the six-month clock discussed below runs. Third, remember that at this stage there is no operating account: the money sits in a blocked escrow (compte bloqu\u00e9) opened in the founders’ names for the company in formation, and it will only move on presentation of proof of registration. Anyone promising you a fully usable corporate account before the Kbis is selling you a different product, usually a payment account that the registration portal will not accept as a depositary certificate.<\/p>\n Between the deposit and the Kbis there is a legal void that surprises every common-law founder: your company does not exist yet. Article L.210-6 of the Commercial Code<\/a> states: “Les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s commerciales jouissent de la personnalit\u00e9 morale \u00e0 dater de leur immatriculation au registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s. La transformation r\u00e9guli\u00e8re d’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 n’entra\u00eene pas la cr\u00e9ation d’une personne morale nouvelle. Il en est de m\u00eame de la prorogation. Les personnes qui ont agi au nom d’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en formation avant qu’elle ait acquis la jouissance de la personnalit\u00e9 morale sont tenues solidairement et ind\u00e9finiment responsables des actes ainsi accomplis, \u00e0 moins que la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, apr\u00e8s avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement constitu\u00e9e et immatricul\u00e9e, ne reprenne les engagements souscrits. Ces engagements sont alors r\u00e9put\u00e9s avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 souscrits d\u00e8s l’origine par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9.” In plain English: commercial companies acquire legal personality only upon registration, the people who acted in the name of the company in formation stay jointly and indefinitely liable, unless the company, once duly formed and registered, takes over (reprend) the commitments \u2014 and those commitments are then deemed to have been made by the company from the start. Everything you sign during the blocked-capital phase \u2014 the deposit agreement, a lease promise, an offer letter, a supplier order \u2014 falls under this mechanism of reprise des engagements, the takeover of pre-registration acts. Get the wording wrong and either you stay personally liable forever, or the act is void and your counterparty walks away.<\/p>\n For years the Court of Cassation applied this mechanism with extreme strictness. In its judgment of 29 November 2023, Commercial Chamber, appeal no. 22-18.295 (full official text<\/a>), the Court recalled its own case law in these terms: “La Cour de cassation juge depuis de nombreuses ann\u00e9es que ne sont susceptibles d’\u00eatre repris par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 apr\u00e8s son immatriculation que les engagements express\u00e9ment souscrits \u00ab au nom \u00bb (Com., 22 mai 2001, n\u00b0 98-19.742 ; Com., 21 f\u00e9vrier 2012, n\u00b0 10-27.630, Bull. n\u00b0 4 ; Com., 13 novembre 2013, n\u00b0 12-26.158) ou \u00ab pour le compte \u00bb (Com., 11 juin 2013, n\u00b0 11-27.356 ; Com., 10 mars 2021, n\u00b0 19-15.618) de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en formation, et que sont nuls les actes pass\u00e9s \u00ab par \u00bb la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, m\u00eame s’il ressort des mentions de l’acte ou des circonstances que l’intention des parties \u00e9tait que l’acte soit accompli en son nom ou pour son compte (3e Civ., 5 octobre 2011, n\u00b0 09-72.855 ; Com., 21 f\u00e9vrier 2012, n\u00b0 10-27.630, Bull. n\u00b0 4 ; Com., 19 janvier 2022, n\u00b0 20-13.719).” In other words, only commitments expressly subscribed “in the name of” or “on behalf of” the company in formation could be taken over, and acts signed “by” the non-existent company were void even when everyone plainly intended to act for it. The Court openly admitted the damage: “Elle s’av\u00e8re ainsi produire des effets ind\u00e9sirables en \u00e9tant parfois utilis\u00e9e par des parties souhaitant se soustraire \u00e0 leurs engagements, et a paradoxalement pour cons\u00e9quence de fragiliser les entreprises lors de leur d\u00e9marrage sous forme sociale au lieu de les prot\u00e9ger, sans toujours apporter une protection ad\u00e9quate aux tiers cocontractants, qui, en cas d’annulation de l’acte, se trouvent d\u00e9pourvus de tout d\u00e9biteur.” A rule meant to protect startups was being used by parties to escape their contracts, leaving counterparties with no debtor at all.<\/p>\n The case itself shows how concrete the danger is. On 28 April 2016 a woman signed a commercial lease with an SAS described as “in formation” together with three founders acting jointly; the company was registered on 15 June 2016, later went into court-ordered liquidation (liquidation judiciaire<\/a>), and the lessor tried to have the lease annulled to block the sale of the business assets, arguing the lease signed by a non-existent company could never have been taken over. The Paris Court of Appeal had saved the lease through the articles of association, but the Court of Cassation quashed that reasoning and laid down the new method (official text of the 29 November 2023 ruling<\/a>): “il appara\u00eet possible et souhaitable de reconna\u00eetre d\u00e9sormais au juge le pouvoir d’appr\u00e9cier souverainement, par un examen de l’ensemble des circonstances, tant intrins\u00e8ques \u00e0 l’acte qu’extrins\u00e8ques, si la commune intention des parties n’\u00e9tait pas que l’acte f\u00fbt conclu au nom ou pour le compte de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en formation et que cette soci\u00e9t\u00e9 puisse ensuite, apr\u00e8s avoir acquis la personnalit\u00e9 juridique, d\u00e9cider de reprendre les engagements souscrits.” From now on, the judge sovereignly assesses all the circumstances, inside and outside the document, to decide whether the parties’ common intention was to contract in the name of or on behalf of the company in formation. The operative part is unambiguous: “CASSE ET ANNULE, en toutes ses dispositions, l’arr\u00eat rendu le 18 novembre 2021, entre les parties, par la cour d’appel de Paris”, with the case sent back to the Versailles Court of Appeal. For a foreign founder, the practical lesson is double. The old formalism no longer kills every badly drafted act, but you should never rely on a judge’s later assessment: sign every pre-Kbis document expressly in the name and on behalf of the company in formation, giving its exact projected name, keep proof that the counterparty knew the company was in formation, and list each act with its date in an annex to the articles so the takeover is automatic upon signature of the articles and registration. Bank deposit forms, domiciliation contracts and pre-hiring letters all deserve the same formula.<\/p>\n Banks in France are free to choose their customers, and a foreign-owned company in formation with funds wired from abroad is exactly the file compliance departments fear. A refusal to open the corporate account is therefore lawful in itself \u2014 but it triggers a supervised procedure that ends with an account. The starting point is Article L.312-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code<\/a>, which opens with: “I. \u2013 A droit \u00e0 l’ouverture d’un compte de d\u00e9p\u00f4t dans l’\u00e9tablissement de cr\u00e9dit de son choix, sous r\u00e9serve d’\u00eatre d\u00e9pourvu d’un tel compte en France : 1\u00b0 Toute personne physique ou morale domicili\u00e9e en France”. Any individual or legal entity domiciled in France and holding no such account in France has the right to a deposit account at the bank of its choice. The official business portal confirms the sequence for professionals: the bank must give you a written refusal certificate (attestation de refus) within fifteen days, stating the reason and reminding you that you can apply to the Banque de France (France’s central bank, which runs the designation scheme); the Banque de France then designates a bank near the address of your choice within one working day of receiving the complete file; and the designated bank must open the account within three working days of receiving all the documents it needs, with twelve free basic banking services (services bancaires de base) \u2014 opening, maintenance and closure, one change of address per year, RIB slips (relev\u00e9s d’identit\u00e9 bancaire, the slips carrying your account identifiers), direct debits and transfers, a monthly statement \u2014 and no overdraft facility. Keep the refusal letter safe: it is the key that starts the whole procedure, and without it the Banque de France cannot act.<\/p>\n The leading illustration of how this works \u2014 and where it stops \u2014 is the Paris Court of Appeal ruling of 6 July 2023, First Division, Chamber 2, general docket no. 22\/17393, SASU Locial v. BNP Paribas (official text of the ruling<\/a>), which every foreign founder opening an account after a refusal should read. A newly formed single-shareholder SAS (SASU) used the right-to-an-account procedure, was assigned to BNP Paribas by the Banque de France on 16 August 2022, considered the bank was unduly refusing to open the account, and sued in emergency proceedings (r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9) before the Paris Commercial Court for an opening order plus 30,000 euros for commercial loss. The emergency judge rejected everything on 30 September 2022 and ordered the company to pay 2,000 euros in costs; on appeal, the Paris court confirmed the order in full and added 1,500 euros against the company. The court’s reasoning is the passage to memorise: “Il sera rappel\u00e9 que le droit au compte, pr\u00e9vu par l’article L. 312-1 du code mon\u00e9taire et financier, doit s’articuler avec les obligations de vigilance relatives \u00e0 la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux et le financement du terrorisme, auxquelles sont assujettis les \u00e9tablissements bancaires, conform\u00e9ment aux articles L. 561-4-1 et suivants du code mon\u00e9taire et financier.” The right to an account must be reconciled with anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist-financing vigilance duties. And crucially: “Cet article s’applique \u00e9galement lorsqu’un \u00e9tablissement de cr\u00e9dit a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9sign\u00e9 par la Banque de France sur le fondement de l’article L. 312-1 et que l’\u00e9tablissement n’a pas pu satisfaire \u00e0 l’une des obligations pr\u00e9vues \u00e0 l’article L. 561-5 ou \u00e0 l’article L. 561-5-1.” Article L.561-8 of the Monetary and Financial Code<\/a> \u2014 which forbids any transaction or business relationship where identification and knowledge duties cannot be met \u2014 applies even to a bank designated by the Banque de France.<\/p>\n Why did the identification fail in that case, as the Paris Court of Appeal explained on 6 July 2023<\/a>? The bank, relying on the guidelines of the ACPR (Autorit\u00e9 de contr\u00f4le prudentiel et de r\u00e9solution, the banking supervisor) of 16 December 2021, had asked for the information any risk-based file requires: “l’adresse du si\u00e8ge social, l’objet social, le secteur d’activit\u00e9, la situation financi\u00e8re des personnes morales et tout autre \u00e9l\u00e9ment pertinent, selon une approche par risque ; que peuvent notamment \u00eatre r\u00e9clam\u00e9s, par exemple, pour une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 commerciale, ses principaux fournisseurs ou clients lors de l’ouverture d’un compte et, pour les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s nouvellement cr\u00e9\u00e9es, un bilan pr\u00e9visionnel et le volume de facturation attendu”. Registered office, corporate purpose, business sector, financial position, and for a newly created company a forecast balance sheet and expected billing volume. The founder answered that only identity papers, proof of address, articles and the Kbis were due. The court sided with the bank: a one-person unregulated company doing financial placements for third parties, whose clients and business model stayed unexplained, justified reinforced vigilance, and “les obligations tenant \u00e0 la lutte contre le blanchiment et au financement du terrorisme s’imposent y compris pour la proc\u00e9dure de droit au compte, ce m\u00eame si le repr\u00e9sentant l\u00e9gal […] est physiquement pr\u00e9sent”. Those duties apply even within the right-to-an-account procedure, even if the legal representative shows up in person. The company’s unanswered email of 9 November 2022 asking for its business model, its clients and its accounts sealed the outcome: “la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 intim\u00e9e peut valablement faire \u00e9tat, \u00e0 tout le moins, d’une contestation s\u00e9rieuse s’opposant \u00e0 l’ouverture du compte, au sens de l’article 872 du code de proc\u00e9dure civile, eu \u00e9gard aux obligations d’un \u00e9tablissement bancaire r\u00e9sultant des articles L. 561-5 et L. 561-5-1 du code mon\u00e9taire et financier.” For a foreign founder the message is operational, not theoretical: file for the Banque de France designation the day you hold the refusal letter, but use the waiting time to build the compliance file the designated bank will demand \u2014 business model in one page, list of first clients and suppliers with countries, forecast accounts for year one, source-of-funds proof for the wired capital, register of beneficial owners (registre des b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaires effectifs, the RBE filing at the company register) \u2014 and answer every bank email in writing within days. A designation forces a bank to take you, it never dispenses you from proving who you are and what the money is for.<\/p>\n The mirror image of the deposit is the release (d\u00e9blocage): the moment the frozen capital becomes working money. The rule is simple and strict. Article R.223-4 of the Commercial Code<\/a> states: “Le retrait des fonds est accompli par le mandataire de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 sur pr\u00e9sentation du certificat du greffier attestant l’immatriculation de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 au registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s.” Withdrawal is performed by the company’s agent upon presentation of the clerk’s certificate confirming registration. In practice, the Kbis itself serves as that proof: the founder or the mandated agent walks into the depositary bank with the fresh Kbis, the funds move from the blocked escrow to the new operating account, and the company can finally pay the lease deposit, the accountant and the first salaries. Article L.223-8 of the Commercial Code<\/a> states the prohibition that protects everyone meanwhile: “Le retrait des fonds provenant de la lib\u00e9ration des parts sociales ne peut \u00eatre effectu\u00e9 par le mandataire de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, avant l’immatriculation de celle-ci au registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s.” No withdrawal before registration, no exception for urgency, no partial advance to cover supplier payments while the file is pending. Anyone asked to bridge that gap personally should re-read the takeover rules above and sign strictly in the name of the company in formation.<\/p>\n Two failure scenarios complete the picture, and both matter more to a foreign founder than to a local one because distance slows every reaction. First, the project stalls: the bank never issues the certificate, the INPI portal rejects the file twice, the co-founder pulls out. Article L.223-8 of the Commercial Code<\/a> provides the exit: “Si la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 n’est pas constitu\u00e9e dans le d\u00e9lai de six mois \u00e0 compter du premier d\u00e9p\u00f4t de fonds, ou si elle n’est pas immatricul\u00e9e au registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s dans le m\u00eame d\u00e9lai, les apporteurs peuvent individuellement demander en justice l’autorisation de retirer le montant de leurs apports.” If the company is not formed within six months of the first deposit of funds, or not registered within the same period, each contributor may individually ask a court for permission to take their contribution back; a common agent representing all contributors may claim the funds directly from the depositary, and if the founders later decide to form the company after all, the funds must be deposited again. The six months run from the first deposit, not from the last document requested, which is why the transfer paper trail recommended above is also a litigation asset. A founder who wired money in January and is still arguing with a bank in August should have counsel ready for the court application rather than discover the procedure in September. Second, the file is merely slow: INPI review, a missing legal notice (annonce l\u00e9gale, the paid publication of the company’s formation in an authorised newspaper), or a greffe query about the registered office. During those weeks the funds stay blocked and earn the founder nothing; the only productive move is to prepare the operating account file in parallel \u2014 the compliance pack described above \u2014 so the release and the first payments happen in the same week as the Kbis. Publication in the BODACC (Bulletin officiel des annonces civiles et commerciales, the official gazette where the registration is announced) follows automatically and asks nothing of you.<\/p>\n One last wall deserves explicit mention because it hits foreign wires first: the bank’s duty to refuse an opaque operation. We saw that Article L.561-5 of the Monetary and Financial Code<\/a> imposes identification and verification before any business relationship, and Article L.561-8<\/a> orders the bank that cannot satisfy those duties to execute nothing and open nothing \u2014 including under a Banque de France designation. Concretely, a capital transfer arriving from a third country with a vague purpose line, sent by an entity whose ownership chain the bank cannot map to living beneficial owners, will be frozen for enhanced review or rejected outright, and the deposit certificate with it. The defences are unglamorous: label the wire explicitly, attach the draft articles showing the subscriber’s name and amount, file the beneficial-owner register early, route the money through an account in your own name rather than a chain of intermediaries, and never split the capital into unexplained tranches from different countries. Our guide to setting up a company in France as a foreign founder<\/a> walks through the full formation chain in which this deposit step sits; treat the capital transfer as the most examined payment your company will ever make, because for the bank’s compliance department, it is.<\/p>\n Stuck formation capital is almost never a money problem; it is a paper problem, and paper problems have an order of operations. Decide the vehicle and pay the right first instalment \u2014 half of cash shares in an SAS, one fifth of cash contributions in a SARL, the balance within five years of registration. Deposit within eight days with a notary or a bank, record it in the articles, and collect the deposit certificate, since no certificate means no registration file. Sign everything before the Kbis expressly in the name and on behalf of the company in formation, list each act in the articles, and let registration trigger the automatic takeover the Court of Cassation reshaped on 29 November 2023. If a bank refuses the account, take the written refusal within fifteen days, apply to the Banque de France at once, and spend the designation delay assembling the compliance file \u2014 business model, clients, forecasts, source of funds \u2014 that the designated bank is entitled to demand within three working days, as the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed on 6 July 2023. After the Kbis, present it to the depositary and move the funds the same week; if six months pass from the first deposit without registration, go to court to recover the contributions rather than letting them sleep. Follow that sequence and the blocked account becomes what the law intended: a brief escrow between your signature and your Kbis, not the place where your French project goes to wait.<\/p>\n Your capital is blocked at the bank, a certificate is missing, or a French bank has refused your company’s account: our firm offers a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer who reviews your deposit file, your refusal letter and your deadlines. Call Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen at +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a>, or write through our contact page<\/a> with your transfer proofs, the bank’s last message and your draft articles. We act for foreign founders and companies setting up and operating in France.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Foreign founder money frozen before the Kbis? Deposit certificate, refused corporate account, Banque de France designation and release of funds explained.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16273,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kj_source_type":"","_kj_official_id":"","_kj_official_url":"","_kj_judilibre_id":"","_kj_jur":"","_kj_lieu":"","_kj_chambre":"","_kj_rg":"","_kj_date":"","activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"federated","footnotes":""},"categories":[80314,80313],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2118380","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-decryptage","category-doing-business-in-france"],"yoast_head":"\nB. Signing for a company that does not legally exist yet: what the 29 November 2023 reversal changed for founders who act before the Kbis<\/h3>\n
II. When the bank says no: refused corporate account, frozen capital and the Banque de France way out<\/h2>\n
A. A refused account is not the end: the refusal letter, the Banque de France designation and the basic services the bank must provide<\/h3>\n
B. Getting the money back out: release after the Kbis, the six-month failure route, and living with the blocked account meanwhile<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case<\/h2>\n