You live in London, New York or Dubai, your customers are in France, and your adviser back home tells you to “just set up a French company”. Then the French paperwork starts: SAS or SARL, pr\u00e9sident or g\u00e9rant, capital to deposit in a bank that refuses to open an account for a non-resident, a social-security bill you never budgeted for, and a company register (the Registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s, kept by the greffe, the court clerk’s office of the commercial court) that returns your file for one missing certificate. This guide answers the four questions every foreign founder asks, in this order: which vehicle limits your risk, who runs it and what that costs in social charges, how to get the capital into the bank when the bank resists, and how to change vehicle later without dissolving the company. Each answer is grounded in the statute in force on 10 September 2026 and in recent Cour de cassation rulings, and every French acronym is explained on first use.<\/p>\n
France offers two closed companies that cap your liability: the soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e (SAS, simplified joint-stock company) and the soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e (SARL, limited liability company). A one-person SAS is called a SASU (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e unipersonnelle) and a one-person SARL an EURL (entreprise unipersonnelle \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e), but the rules below apply to both. Neither form requires French nationality or French residence from shareholders. Your choice shapes three things: how freely you can organise power, how the director pays social charges, and how easily new investors can enter. The official service-public fiche<\/a> confirms the SAS starting point: capital freely fixed by the shareholders from one euro upward, and a president who represents the company toward third parties. The statute behind that freedom deserves a close look before you sign anything.<\/p>\n Both vehicles shield your personal assets in the same way. Article L227-1 of the Commercial Code<\/a> provides that “Une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e peut \u00eatre institu\u00e9e par une ou plusieurs personnes qui ne supportent les pertes qu’\u00e0 concurrence de leur apport” which means a SAS may be formed by one or more persons whose losses stop at the amount they contributed. Article L223-1<\/a> states the mirror rule for the SARL: “La soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e est institu\u00e9e par une ou plusieurs personnes qui ne supportent les pertes qu’\u00e0 concurrence de leurs apports.” In both cases, when there is only one shareholder, the code calls that sole shareholder the associ\u00e9 unique, the single shareholder. Liability ends at your contribution in either form, so the real differences lie elsewhere.<\/p>\n The first practical difference is capital and how much of it you must actually pay on day one. An SAS has no legal minimum beyond one euro and its articles (statuts) fix the amount freely. A SARL likewise has no minimum capital, but Article L223-7<\/a> imposes a release schedule for cash contributions: “Les parts repr\u00e9sentant des apports en num\u00e9raire doivent \u00eatre lib\u00e9r\u00e9es d’au moins un cinqui\u00e8me de leur montant” meaning cash shares must be paid up to at least one fifth when the company is formed, with the balance callable by the g\u00e9rant within five years of registration. For a foreign founder wiring funds from abroad, that fifth can be an advantage: a 10,000 euro SARL can start with 2,000 euros actually deposited. SAS articles can organise staged payment too, but the SARL schedule is written into the statute itself.<\/p>\n Contributions in kind (equipment, patents, a business) follow a protective ritual in both forms. Article L223-9<\/a> requires that “Les statuts doivent contenir l’\u00e9valuation de chaque apport en nature” with a report annexed to the articles drawn up by an auditor for contributions (commissaire aux apports), unless the future shareholders unanimously waive that auditor below thresholds fixed by decree. The SAS applies the same logic through the renvoi to company law in Article L227-1<\/a>. If you contribute a laptop worth 2,000 euros, the waiver usually covers you; if you contribute software valued at 60,000 euros, expect the auditor, and budget for the fee. Overvaluing an in-kind contribution is one of the few mistakes that can pierce the liability shield, because creditors can pursue the shareholders for the overvaluation.<\/p>\n The second difference is control over who enters the capital. SARL shares (parts sociales) transfer to outsiders only with the approval (agr\u00e9ment) of shareholders representing at least half of the capital, a statutory lock that protects a family company but complicates fundraising. SAS shares (actions) transfer under whatever conditions the articles set: total freedom, approval clause, inalienability for up to ten years, or forced-sale clauses. A foreign founder who plans to admit a French partner, distribute shares to key hires, or sell to an investor in two years will find the SAS toolbox far easier. Conversely, a founder who wants the statute itself to keep strangers out, without drafting bespoke clauses in French legal language, may prefer the SARL default. Drafting quality matters more in an SAS precisely because the statute leaves blanks the shareholders must fill.<\/p>\n That freedom extends to decision-making. Article L227-9<\/a> provides that “Les statuts d\u00e9terminent les d\u00e9cisions qui doivent \u00eatre prises collectivement par les associ\u00e9s dans les formes et conditions qu’ils pr\u00e9voient” so the SAS articles decide which decisions require a collective vote and how that vote is taken, including by video call from abroad or written consultation. Certain matters such as capital increases, mergers, dissolution, and the appointment of auditors stay collective by law, but everything else is contractual. The SARL is the opposite: quorums, majorities, and the annual meeting calendar are fixed by statute, which reassures a non-French speaker because nothing essential hides in a clause you did not translate. If you choose an SAS from abroad, have the articles translated and reviewed line by line; the flexibility you buy is only worth what your clauses actually say.<\/p>\n Management titles differ and so does the social-security regime attached to them, and this is where foreign founders lose the most money through uninformed choices. An SAS is represented toward third parties by a pr\u00e9sident appointed under the conditions set by the articles. Article L227-5<\/a> states that “Les statuts fixent les conditions dans lesquelles la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 est dirig\u00e9e” and Article L227-6<\/a> adds that “La soci\u00e9t\u00e9 est repr\u00e9sent\u00e9e \u00e0 l’\u00e9gard des tiers par un pr\u00e9sident d\u00e9sign\u00e9 dans les conditions pr\u00e9vues par les statuts” with the pr\u00e9sident holding the widest powers to act in the company’s name within the corporate purpose: “Le pr\u00e9sident est investi des pouvoirs les plus \u00e9tendus pour agir en toute circonstance au nom de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 dans la limite de l’objet social”. A SARL is managed by one or more g\u00e9rants who must be natural persons: Article L223-18<\/a> provides that “La soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e est g\u00e9r\u00e9e par une ou plusieurs personnes physiques” appointed by the shareholders in the articles or by a later decision.<\/p>\n The pr\u00e9sident of an SAS who receives pay is affiliated to the general social-security scheme as an assimilated employee (assimil\u00e9 salari\u00e9), the same family of regimes as ordinary employees, without unemployment insurance. The statute places the pr\u00e9sidents and dirigeants of an SAS among the persons compulsorily covered by the general scheme, a rule the Cour de cassation enforces to the letter as shown below. On 5 June 2025, the Second Civil Chamber held, appeal number 23-13.887<\/a>, that “Selon l’article L. 311-3, 23\u00b0, du code de la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sociale, dans sa r\u00e9daction applicable au litige, sont obligatoirement affili\u00e9s aux assurances sociales du r\u00e9gime g\u00e9n\u00e9ral les pr\u00e9sidents et dirigeants des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s par actions simplifi\u00e9es et de soci\u00e9t\u00e9s d’exercice lib\u00e9ral par actions simplifi\u00e9es.” In that case the court upheld a URSSAF reassessment (URSSAF, the union that collects social contributions) against a man who chaired only a supervisory board but in fact exercised direction, because his powers were recorded in the BODACC (Bulletin officiel des annonces civiles et commerciales, the official gazette of company notices) as binding the company on a routine basis. The lesson for a foreign founder is twofold: whoever really directs the SAS pays contributions under the general scheme, and titles on paper do not defeat functions actually exercised.<\/p>\n The g\u00e9rant of a SARL follows a split regime that turns entirely on the shareholding. Article L311-3 of the Social Security Code<\/a> covers “Les g\u00e9rants de soci\u00e9t\u00e9s \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e et de soci\u00e9t\u00e9s d’exercice lib\u00e9ral \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e \u00e0 condition que lesdits g\u00e9rants ne poss\u00e8dent pas ensemble plus de la moiti\u00e9 du capital social,” counting shares held by the spouse, civil partner, and minor children as the g\u00e9rant’s own. A minority or equal-share g\u00e9rant is therefore assimilated to an employee like an SAS pr\u00e9sident. A majority g\u00e9rant falls instead into the independent-workers scheme (travailleur ind\u00e9pendant, formerly TNS), whose contributions are assessed under Article L131-6 of the Social Security Code<\/a> on business income: “Les cotisations de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sociale dues par les travailleurs ind\u00e9pendants non agricoles ne relevant pas du dispositif pr\u00e9vu \u00e0 l’article L. 613-7 sont assises sur l’assiette d\u00e9finie \u00e0 l’article L. 136-3.” Independent status usually costs less in contributions but buys thinner coverage, notably no daily sick allowances comparable to employees and no unemployment rights. A foreign founder who holds 100 percent of a SARL and manages it is an independent worker by definition, which surprises founders who assumed any directorship brings employee-style protection.<\/p>\n An older ruling confirms the logic from the other side. On 15 March 2018, appeal number 17-15.192<\/a>, the Second Civil Chamber held in an agricultural dispute that “le r\u00e9gime de protection sociale des salari\u00e9s des professions agricoles est applicable aux pr\u00e9sidents et dirigeants des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s par actions simplifi\u00e9es qui exercent une activit\u00e9 agricole au sens de l’article L. 722-1, 1\u00b0 \u00e0 4\u00b0, du m\u00eame code” so that the SAS pr\u00e9sident could not be charged contributions as a farm operator. The principle travels beyond farms: directing an SAS puts you on the employee side of the social-security line, directing your own majority SARL puts you on the independent side. Before choosing, model both bills with an accountant: an SAS pr\u00e9sident taking 60,000 euros of pay costs roughly 25,000 to 28,000 euros in combined employer and employee charges, while a majority SARL g\u00e9rant on equivalent drawings pays independent contributions at lower headline rates but must self-insure risks the general scheme would have covered.<\/p>\n Governance flexibility has a judicial boundary worth knowing from day one. On 9 July 2025, the Commercial Chamber, appeal number 24-10.428<\/a>, recalled that “Il r\u00e9sulte de ces textes que les statuts de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e fixent les conditions dans lesquelles celle-ci est dirig\u00e9e, notamment les modalit\u00e9s de r\u00e9vocation de ses dirigeants.” and that “Si une d\u00e9cision des associ\u00e9s peut compl\u00e9ter les statuts sur ce point, elle ne peut y d\u00e9roger, quand bien m\u00eame aurait-elle \u00e9t\u00e9 prise \u00e0 l’unanimit\u00e9.” A shareholders’ vote, even unanimous, can supplement the articles but never contradict them. For a foreign founder this means the articles are the constitution: dismissal procedures, severance promises, and veto rights granted in a side letter or meeting minutes lose against the articles in court. Put every essential protection inside the statuts themselves, and update the articles rather than stacking informal resolutions.<\/p>\n Choosing the vehicle is half the battle. The other half is procedural: depositing the capital from a foreign bank, surviving the compliance checks of a French bank, registering with the one-stop shop, and knowing how to transform the company if the first choice proves wrong. Foreign founders discover at this stage that French company law is less about grand principles than about certificates, each unlocking the next. The sequence below follows the order in which administrations actually ask for documents.<\/p>\n Cash contributions must be deposited before registration. Article L225-5 of the Commercial Code<\/a>, applicable to companies issuing shares, requires that “Les fonds provenant des souscriptions en num\u00e9raire et la liste des souscripteurs avec l’indication des sommes vers\u00e9es par chacun d’eux font l’objet d’un d\u00e9p\u00f4t dans les conditions d\u00e9termin\u00e9es par d\u00e9cret en Conseil d’Etat” In practice the founder wires the funds to a French bank, often a notary (notaire) or the Caisse des d\u00e9p\u00f4ts, which issues the capital-deposit certificate (certificat de d\u00e9p\u00f4t des fonds) needed for the registration file. The funds stay frozen until the company is entered on the register and the Kbis (the official identity card of the company, an extract from the Registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s) is issued; the bank then releases them against the Kbis. Legal personality itself dates from registration, since Article L210-6 of the Commercial Code<\/a> provides that “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.” Acts signed for the company while it is still “in formation” must be listed and taken over after registration, or the founder remains personally bound.<\/p>\n Non-resident founders regularly hit a wall at this step: the bank declines to open the account, citing anti-money-laundering checks, absence of a French tax number, or simply internal policy toward foreign clients. Two remedies exist. The first is practical: online banks and specialised providers serving non-residents issue deposit certificates accepted by the greffe, and several founders open the operating account later with a different institution once the Kbis exists. The second is legal and underused: the right to an account (droit au compte). Article L312-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code<\/a> states that “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” a right granted expressly to “Toute personne physique ou morale domicili\u00e9e en France” which covers a company in formation domiciled at its future registered office (si\u00e8ge social). After a documented refusal, the founder applies to the Banque de France, which designates a bank obliged to open a basic account with essential services. The procedure takes weeks, so start it in parallel with negotiations rather than after the third refusal.<\/p>\n Prepare the compliance file as a banker would want to see it: passport certified or apostilled according to your country, proof of address abroad with sworn translation, source-of-funds evidence for the capital (sale of shares, savings statements, loan agreement), draft articles, and the lease or domiciliation contract for the si\u00e8ge social. Funds arriving from a jurisdiction on a grey list trigger enhanced review; a short explanatory note tracing each transfer, with bank statements showing the origin, shortens the process more than any insistence. Never route the capital through a personal account already flagged, and never split the wire into small amounts to avoid thresholds, a pattern monitoring software reads as structuring. If one bank refuses, ask for the written refusal: it is the entry ticket to the Banque de France procedure.<\/p>\n Registration itself runs through the Guichet unique, the single online filing portal operated for the INPI (Institut national de la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 industrielle, which also handles trademarks and now centralises company filings). The file combines the articles, the deposit certificate, the occupation title for the registered office, identity documents of the director, a declaration of non-conviction, and the notice of incorporation published in a legal gazette (journal d’annonces l\u00e9gales). The greffe verifies and the company receives its SIREN number (the nine-digit national identifier issued by INSEE) and its Kbis. Errors on the director’s name transliteration, the office address, or the corporate purpose are the three classic grounds for rejection of foreign files; each rejection restarts the clock while your capital sleeps frozen. Budget two to four weeks end to end, longer if the bank stage drags.<\/p>\n Many founders start as an EURL or SARL for simplicity, then need an SAS when a business angel asks for preferred shares or a stock-option plan for hires. French law allows transformation (transformation) from one form to another without creating a new legal person and without dissolving the old one: personality continues, contracts continue, and the SIREN number stays the same. Only the articles change, the director’s title changes, and a new Kbis reflecting the SAS form is issued. That continuity is the key commercial point: clients, the lease, loans, and pending litigation survive the operation untouched.<\/p>\n The procedure protects creditors and minority shareholders, so it cannot be done on a handshake. Transforming a company with no statutory auditor into a company limited by shares requires a transformation auditor (commissaire \u00e0 la transformation) who values the assets and any special advantages. Article L224-3<\/a> provides that “Lorsqu’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de quelque forme que ce soit qui n’a pas de commissaire aux comptes se transforme en soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions, un ou plusieurs commissaires \u00e0 la transformation, charg\u00e9s d’appr\u00e9cier sous leur responsabilit\u00e9 la valeur des biens composant l’actif social et les avantages particuliers, sont d\u00e9sign\u00e9s” The shareholders then vote the transformation under the majority rules of the target form, adopt the new articles, appoint the pr\u00e9sident, and file the whole package with the Guichet unique: auditor’s report, minutes, updated articles, new director documents, and the amendment notice in a legal gazette. Missing the auditor’s report is the most common cause of rejection at the greffe, followed by articles that forget the mandatory SAS clauses on collective decisions and the pr\u00e9sident.<\/p>\n Tax follows the transformation with one trap to neutralise. A SARL owned by individuals pays corporate tax (imp\u00f4t sur les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s) like an SAS in most cases, so moving from SARL to SAS usually changes nothing fiscally. But a SARL that elected for partnership-style transparent taxation, or an EURL whose single shareholder is an individual taxed personally, faces a deemed cessation on transformation: the tax administration treats the change as the end of one regime and the start of another, which can trigger immediate taxation of hidden reserves and deferred profits unless the company opts into the statutory rollover and files the required statements. Check the company’s tax option in its returns before voting anything, and have the accountant quantify the latent bill. The reverse move, SAS to SARL, follows the same filing logic and additionally changes the director’s social regime from assimilated employee to, usually, independent worker, which resets contribution rates and coverage from the date of the change.<\/p>\n Post-transformation housekeeping decides whether the operation actually pays off. Notify the bank, because signing powers recorded under the g\u00e9rant must be reissued to the pr\u00e9sident; inform insurers, suppliers with change-of-control clauses, and the landlord if the lease requires notice of form changes; update the beneficial-owner register if the capital table moved; and align employment paperwork, since the director’s pay slips switch schemes. URSSAF expects the affiliation change to be declared, and a pr\u00e9sident who keeps paying independent-worker contributions months after the transformation invites a reassessment of the exact type the Cour de cassation upheld in June 2025. Diarise each counterparty and close them within thirty days; a transformation legally complete but administratively half-done generates the inconsistencies that later fuel disputes over who could validly bind the company.<\/p>\n For most foreign founders, the SAS is the better default: free capital terms, tailor-made governance that works across borders, shares that admit investors without statutory friction, and a director affiliated to the general social-security scheme. The SARL keeps two genuine advantages: a statutory framework that protects an unsophisticated founder from drafting gaps, and the independent-worker regime for a majority g\u00e9rant who prefers lower contributions to thicker coverage. Whichever you pick, deposit the capital early with a provider that accepts non-residents, keep the written bank refusal that opens the Banque de France route, write every essential power into the articles rather than side minutes, and remember that transformation repairs a wrong first choice without killing the company. If you are still hesitating between incorporating, opening a branch (succursale) or a subsidiary, read first our broader comparator: How Should a Foreign Founder Choose Between a French SAS, SARL, Branch or Subsidiary?<\/a>. Our companion pillar guide walks through the full formation sequence, bank account, Kbis, VAT and first hire in one place: Setting Up a Company in France as a Foreign Founder: Bank Account, Kbis, VAT and Your First Hire<\/a>. If your file is already stuck, bring the refusal letters, the draft articles, and the last URSSAF notice to the first call; those three documents usually determine the whole strategy.<\/p>\n Setting up or restructuring a French company from abroad raises one-off questions that generic guides cannot settle. Our firm offers a telephone consultation within 48 hours with an attorney of the firm. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a> or write through our contact page<\/a> with your draft articles and your bank correspondence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Foreign founder hesitating between SAS and SARL? Liability, capital, director social charges, blocked bank deposit and switching vehicles later, with statutes and case law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16432,"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-2118865","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-decryptage","category-doing-business-in-france"],"yoast_head":"\nA. What You Risk and What You Keep: Liability, Capital and Control of the Shares<\/h3>\n
B. Who Runs the Company: Pr\u00e9sident, G\u00e9rant and the Social-Security Bill<\/h3>\n
II. Funding the Company, Opening the Bank Account and Changing Course From Abroad<\/h2>\n
A. Paying In the Capital When the Bank Says No: Deposit Certificate and Right to an Account<\/h3>\n
B. Switching Vehicles Without Starting Over: Transformation, New Kbis and Tax Continuity<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case<\/h2>\n