You live in London, New York, Dubai or Singapore. You have decided to create a French company, usually a SAS (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e, the flexible joint-stock company foreign founders prefer) or sometimes a SARL (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e, the limited liability company with stricter statutory rules). Your lawyer drafts the articles of association, you wire the share capital from abroad, and then everything stops: no French bank wants to open an account for your company in formation, and without the bank’s capital deposit certificate (attestation de d\u00e9p\u00f4t des fonds) the commercial court registry \u2014 the greffe, the office of the commercial court that registers companies \u2014 refuses to issue the Kbis, the official registration certificate that proves your company legally exists. This article explains why banks refuse, what they are legally entitled to ask you, and the two remedies that actually unlock the file: the deposit alternatives and the droit au compte (right to an account) procedure before the Banque de France (the French central bank), enforced by the courts when banks resist.<\/p>\n
This situation is extremely common for non-resident founders. French banks apply strict anti-money-laundering controls to foreign shareholders, ultimate beneficial owners registered in the RBE (registre des b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaires effectifs, the French beneficial ownership register), and funds arriving from abroad. From your side of the Channel or the Atlantic, a refusal without explanation feels arbitrary and blocking. It is not always unlawful. But it is never the end of the road: French law provides a precise path from refusal to designation to court order, and two recent appeal decisions show exactly where the line sits between a legitimate bank control and an unlawful refusal. For the general incorporation sequence \u2014 bank account, Kbis, VAT number and first hire \u2014 read first our step-by-step guide to setting up a company in France as a foreign founder<\/a>; this article covers the crisis scenario where the bank says no.<\/p>\n To understand a refusal, you must separate two different banking moments that foreign founders constantly confuse: the deposit of the share capital for a company that does not legally exist yet, and the opening of a running current account for a company already registered. Different rules apply, different documents are needed, and different remedies exist. Most files get stuck at the first stage, before the company even has a name in the national company register (registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s, kept by the greffe and published in BODACC, the official bulletin of company registrations).<\/p>\n French company law requires that cash contributions be frozen with an authorised depositary before registration. In a SARL, the rule is set by statute: shares representing cash contributions must be paid up (lib\u00e9r\u00e9es) for at least one fifth of their amount at incorporation, and the statute states the mechanism in these terms:<\/p>\n “Les parts sociales doivent \u00eatre souscrites en totalit\u00e9 par les associ\u00e9s.” “Les parts repr\u00e9sentant des apports en num\u00e9raire doivent \u00eatre lib\u00e9r\u00e9es d’au moins un cinqui\u00e8me de leur montant.” “Les fonds provenant de la lib\u00e9ration des parts sociales sont d\u00e9pos\u00e9s dans les conditions et d\u00e9lais d\u00e9termin\u00e9s par d\u00e9cret en Conseil d’Etat.” (article L223-7 of the Commercial Code<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The implementing decree fixes a short deadline and three possible depositaries, which matters enormously when banks refuse:<\/p>\n “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. Mention de la lib\u00e9ration des parts et du d\u00e9p\u00f4t des fonds est port\u00e9e dans les statuts.” (article R223-3 of the Commercial Code<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n For a SAS \u2014 the vehicle most foreign founders choose because it can be formed by one or more persons whose liability is limited to their contributions, as article L227-1 of the Commercial Code<\/a> provides (“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”) \u2014 the deposit follows the rules of the SAS’s reference regime for subscriptions in cash:<\/p>\n “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, celui-ci fixe \u00e9galement les conditions dans lesquelles est ouvert le droit \u00e0 communication de cette liste. A l’exception des d\u00e9positaires vis\u00e9s par le d\u00e9cret pr\u00e9vu \u00e0 l’alin\u00e9a pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent, nul ne peut d\u00e9tenir plus de huit jours les sommes recueillies pour le compte d’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en formation.” (article L225-5 of the Commercial Code<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Read these three texts together and the practical picture becomes clear. First, the eight-day rule runs against whoever receives the funds: your French lawyer or agent cannot simply hold the wired capital indefinitely while you shop for a bank. Second, and decisively for blocked files, a bank is not the only depositary. The Caisse des d\u00e9p\u00f4ts et consignations (CDC, the state-owned public financial institution) and a French notary (notaire, the public officer who authenticates deeds) can receive the capital and issue the deposit certificate. When every bank’s compliance department turns down a company with a foreign shareholder, routing the deposit through a notary or the CDC is often the fastest way to obtain the certificate, file with the INPI single window (Institut national de la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 industrielle, which operates the Guichet unique, the online one-stop filing portal for company registrations), and get the Kbis. Third, the deposit certificate must list the subscribers and the sums paid by each of them, so the depositary will itself ask for shareholder identification \u2014 prepare that file once, and reuse it everywhere.<\/p>\n Common foreign-founder mistakes at this stage are easy to list because banks report them identically every time. Wiring the capital from a personal account instead of the subscriber’s account creates a mismatch the bank must investigate. Wiring from a country or an intermediary the bank cannot document triggers enhanced checks. Subscribing through a foreign holding company without disclosing the ultimate beneficial owners forces the bank to stop and ask who really owns the funds. And presenting draft articles of association that do not state the release of the shares and the deposit of the funds \u2014 the mention required by article R223-3 \u2014 gives the bank a formal reason to wait. None of these mistakes is fatal, but each one adds weeks when you are managing the file from abroad, which is why the compliance file described in the next section should be assembled before the first bank appointment, not after the first refusal.<\/p>\n Banks are not free to open accounts at their discretion without checks; they are subject to binding vigilance duties in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing (lutte contre le blanchiment des capitaux et le financement du terrorisme, abbreviated LCB-FT). Before entering into a business relationship, they must identify the client and, where applicable, the beneficial owner, and verify those identities:<\/p>\n “Avant d’entrer en relation d’affaires avec leur client ou de l’assister dans la pr\u00e9paration ou la r\u00e9alisation d’une transaction, les personnes mentionn\u00e9es \u00e0 l’article L. 561-2 : 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.” (article L561-5 of the Monetary and Financial Code<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n They must also collect information on the purpose and nature of the relationship and every other relevant element before the relationship starts, and keep that knowledge updated for as long as the relationship lasts:<\/p>\n “Avant d’entrer en relation d’affaires, les personnes mentionn\u00e9es \u00e0 l’article L. 561-2 recueillent les informations relatives \u00e0 l’objet et \u00e0 la nature de cette relation et tout autre \u00e9l\u00e9ment d’information pertinent. Elles actualisent ces informations pendant toute la dur\u00e9e de la relation d’affaires.” (article L561-5-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The implementing regulation details the method: obliged entities collect and analyse the information needed to understand the purpose and nature of the relationship, and the extent of the information and analysis adapts to the money-laundering risk presented by the relationship:<\/p>\n “les personnes mentionn\u00e9es \u00e0 l’article L. 561-2 : 1\u00b0 Avant d’entrer en relation d’affaires, recueillent et analysent les \u00e9l\u00e9ments d’information n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 la connaissance de l’objet et de la nature de la relation d’affaires” and further “La nature et l’\u00e9tendue des informations collect\u00e9es ainsi que la fr\u00e9quence de la mise \u00e0 jour de ces informations et l’\u00e9tendue des analyses men\u00e9es sont adapt\u00e9s au risque de blanchiment de capitaux et de financement du terrorisme pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 par la relation d’affaires.” (article R561-12 of the Monetary and Financial Code<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The sanction for the bank that cannot complete these checks is not a fine for opening the account \u2014 it is a prohibition on opening it at all:<\/p>\n “Lorsqu’une personne mentionn\u00e9e \u00e0 l’article L. 561-2 n’est pas en mesure de satisfaire aux obligations pr\u00e9vues \u00e0 l’article L. 561-5 ou \u00e0 l’article L. 561-5-1 , elle n’ex\u00e9cute aucune op\u00e9ration, quelles qu’en soient les modalit\u00e9s, n’\u00e9tablit ni ne poursuit aucune relation d’affaires” and, decisive for designated banks, “Le I 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 L561-8 of the Monetary and Financial Code<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n This last sentence is the one foreign founders must understand before crying foul: even a bank designated by the Banque de France under the right-to-an-account procedure may lawfully refuse if it cannot satisfy its identification and knowledge duties. The Paris Court of Appeal applied exactly this articulation on 6 July 2023 in a case brought by a single-shareholder SAS (SASU) against a major French bank designated by the Banque de France. The court recalled the principle in these terms:<\/p>\n “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.” (Paris Court of Appeal, P\u00f4le 1 Chambre 2, 6 July 2023, RG 22\/17393<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In that case the company described itself as providing investment advice or investment services without holding any licence or registration, could not explain the real substance of its activity or the identity of its clients, and left unanswered the bank’s request for its business model, client identities and accounting documents or at least a forecast balance sheet. The court held that the bank could validly rely on a serious dispute barring summary relief, confirmed the first judge’s order in full and ordered the company to pay the bank 1,500 euros under article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure:<\/p>\n “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.” “Confirme l’ordonnance entreprise.” “Condamne la SASU Locial \u00e0 verser \u00e0 la SA BNP Paribas la somme de 1.500 euros en application de l’article 700 du code de proc\u00e9dure civile \u00e0 hauteur d’appel” (Paris Court of Appeal, P\u00f4le 1 Chambre 2, 6 July 2023, RG 22\/17393<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The lesson for a foreign founder is direct: an opaque file loses even with a Banque de France designation in hand. A transparent file \u2014 passports, proof of address, articles, RBE declaration showing the beneficial owners, source-of-funds evidence, business plan with expected billing volumes, and answers to the bank’s questions about suppliers, clients and the purpose of the French company \u2014 removes the bank’s only lawful ground for refusal.<\/p>\n Concretely, expect the bank to request the registered office address, the corporate purpose, the sector of activity, the financial situation of the legal entity and any other relevant element under a risk-based approach, following the ACPR guidelines (Autorit\u00e9 de contr\u00f4le prudentiel et de r\u00e9solution, the French banking supervisor) of 16 December 2021 cited by the Paris court \u2014 for example the main suppliers or clients at account opening, and for newly created companies a forecast balance sheet and expected invoicing volumes. If your activity is regulated (financial services, payment services, insurance intermediation), bring the licence or registration on day one. If it is not regulated but looks financial (holding, investment, crypto-adjacent, trade intermediation), prepare a one-page note explaining the business model in plain language: what the French company will do, for whom, with what money, and why France. Founders who answer these questions before they are asked almost never reach the refusal stage; founders who treat them as intrusions do.<\/p>\n A bank has the right to refuse; it does not have the right to refuse silently, without reasons, or permanently without remedy. French law organises a precise escalation: written refusal, Banque de France designation within one business day, account opening with basic services within three business days, and court enforcement with daily penalties and damages when the designated bank still resists. Each step has its own proof requirements, and founders living abroad should prepare each proof as if the next step were certain \u2014 because when you are refused by two banks, it usually is.<\/p>\n The right to an account belongs to any individual or legal entity domiciled in France that holds no such account, as the statute opens:<\/p>\n “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” (article L312-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n When the chosen bank refuses, the applicant may refer the matter to the Banque de France, which designates a bank near the applicant’s domicile or another place of their choice, taking market shares into account, within one business day of receiving the required documents, as the same article L312-1<\/a> provides (“celle-ci peut saisir la Banque de France afin qu’elle lui d\u00e9signe un \u00e9tablissement de cr\u00e9dit situ\u00e9 \u00e0 proximit\u00e9 de son domicile ou d’un autre lieu de son choix, en prenant en consid\u00e9ration les parts de march\u00e9 de chaque \u00e9tablissement concern\u00e9, dans un d\u00e9lai d’un jour ouvr\u00e9 \u00e0 compter de la r\u00e9ception des pi\u00e8ces requises d\u00e9finies par arr\u00eat\u00e9”). The bank that refused must systematically, free of charge and without delay provide a written refusal certificate (attestation de refus) and inform the applicant of the right to apply to the Banque de France. In practice, the Banque de France procedure requires proof of the refusal: either the certificate or, if the bank stayed silent, a copy of the acknowledgment of receipt of the registered letter requesting the account, or proof of hand delivery at the counter, dating back more than 15 days \u2014 after 15 days without an answer, silence counts as refusal, according to the Banque de France right-to-an-account procedure page<\/a> \u2014 plus valid official identification and proof of address less than three months old. The professional-account route is described step by step on the service-public professional right-to-an-account page<\/a>, which confirms that a bank may refuse a professional account but must issue the refusal certificate, and that the Banque de France then designates a bank within 24 hours of receiving the complete file, the designation remaining valid for six months.<\/p>\n The designated bank does not offer a full premium package; it must offer basic banking services whose content is fixed by decree, and it must open the deposit account within three business days of receiving all the documents it needs, under a written account agreement, as article L312-1<\/a> states (“Ils proc\u00e8dent \u00e0 l’ouverture du compte de d\u00e9p\u00f4t dans les trois jours ouvr\u00e9s \u00e0 compter de la r\u00e9ception de l’ensemble des pi\u00e8ces qui lui sont n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 cet effet”). The basic services are listed by regulation and cover the essentials a new company needs to operate:<\/p>\n “Les prestations de base mentionn\u00e9es au II de l’article L. 312-1 comprennent : 1\u00b0 L’ouverture, la tenue et la cl\u00f4ture du compte ; 2\u00b0 Un changement d’adresse par an ; 3\u00b0 La d\u00e9livrance \u00e0 la demande de relev\u00e9s d’identit\u00e9 bancaire ; 4\u00b0 La domiciliation de virements bancaires ; 5\u00b0 La fourniture mensuelle d’un relev\u00e9 des op\u00e9rations effectu\u00e9es sur le compte ; 6\u00b0 L’encaissement de ch\u00e8ques et de virements bancaires ; 7\u00b0 Les paiements par pr\u00e9l\u00e8vements SEPA, titre interbancaire de paiement SEPA ou par virement bancaire SEPA” with remote balance consultation, cash deposits and withdrawals, and a payment card for online operations and EU cash withdrawals (“8\u00b0 Des moyens de consultation \u00e0 distance du solde du compte ; 9\u00b0 Les d\u00e9p\u00f4ts et les retraits d’esp\u00e8ces au guichet ou aux distributeurs automatiques de l’organisme teneur de compte ; 10\u00b0 Une carte de paiement permettant notamment le paiement d’op\u00e9rations sur internet et le retrait d’esp\u00e8ces dans l’Union europ\u00e9enne.”). (article D312-5 of the Monetary and Financial Code<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Two warnings matter specifically for foreign founders. First, a company in formation has no French domicile yet and no Kbis, so some banks argue the procedure only fits existing persons \u2014 the service-public professional page nevertheless organises the route for professional accounts, and in practice founders file once the draft articles, the registered-office lease or domiciliation contract, and the subscriber identification exist; if the designation route stalls for a company not yet registered, the notary or CDC deposit described in section I.A keeps the incorporation on track while the account battle continues in parallel. Second, the designated bank will still run its LCB-FT checks and may still lawfully refuse if you cannot satisfy them, exactly as article L561-8 allows \u2014 so the compliance file from section I.B must accompany the Banque de France application, not follow it. Send everything twice: once to the bank, once to the Banque de France file.<\/p>\n When a designated bank maintains its refusal without a legitimate anti-money-laundering ground, the courts order the opening under penalty and award damages. The Versailles Court of Appeal demonstrated this on 21 December 2023, confirming a judgment that had ordered a designated bank to open the account under a 50-euro-per-day penalty (astreinte) after a 15-day grace period and awarded 2,000 euros for moral harm. The court stated the governing principle bluntly:<\/p>\n “L’\u00e9tablissement bancaire d\u00e9sign\u00e9 par la Banque de France est tenu d’ouvrir un compte de d\u00e9p\u00f4t au demandeur revendiquant son droit au compte et ce, dans les trois jours de la r\u00e9ception des pi\u00e8ces n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 cet effet.” (Versailles Court of Appeal, 16th chamber, 21 December 2023, RG 22\/05426<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In that case the bank invoked an earlier closed account with unpaid debts and a discrepancy between two birth dates on official documents. The court rejected both grounds: a designated bank could not rely on the earlier closed account, and once the applicant had explained the clerical error on his OFPRA birth certificate with the corrected certificate and both residence permits, the bank, still bound by its designation and holding every necessary document, could no longer lawfully refuse:<\/p>\n “Le Cr\u00e9dit agricole d\u00e9sign\u00e9 par la banque de France en application des dispositions susvis\u00e9es consacrant le droit au compte ne pouvait valablement lui opposer la cl\u00f4ture d’un compte ant\u00e9rieur y compris au motif d’impay\u00e9s non recouvr\u00e9s.” (Versailles Court of Appeal, 16th chamber, 21 December 2023, RG 22\/05426<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The court then found that the bank, designated on 16 November 2017, had to this day and without legitimate reason failed to open the account, confirmed the first judgment in all its provisions, and upheld the 2,000-euro assessment of the moral harm caused by maintaining a refusal without legitimate reason:<\/p>\n “La cour constate que le Cr\u00e9dit agricole bien que d\u00e9sign\u00e9 par la Banque de France le 16 novembre 2017 en application des dispositions de l’article L 312-1 du code mon\u00e9taire et financier n’a pas \u00e0 ce jour et sans motif l\u00e9gitime proc\u00e9d\u00e9 \u00e0 l’ouverture d’un compte au nom de M [E].” “CONFIRME le jugement d\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9 en toutes ses dispositions” (Versailles Court of Appeal, 16th chamber, 21 December 2023, RG 22\/05426<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Note the boundary the court drew on damages: the applicant’s claim for 12,000 euros failed for the part of the harm consisting of being deprived of online payment services, because basic accounts available to anyone \u2014 the court cited the Nickel-type account giving an IBAN, transfers and a card \u2014 already provide those services, so that part of the harm could not flow from the bank’s refusal. Claim the harm the refusal truly caused (blocked incorporation, frozen operations, months of delay), not services you could have obtained elsewhere.<\/p>\n Put the two appeal decisions side by side and the litigation strategy writes itself. The Paris ruling of 6 July 2023 (RG 22\/17393<\/a>) shows the bank winning where the company stayed opaque: unlicensed investment activity, undisclosed clients, unanswered requests for the business model and accounts \u2014 a serious dispute (contestation s\u00e9rieuse) barring summary relief and a 1,500-euro costs order against the company. The Versailles ruling of 21 December 2023 (RG 22\/05426<\/a>) shows the applicant winning where every document had been supplied and every anomaly explained: opening ordered under astreinte plus 2,000 euros. The difference between the two outcomes is not the quality of the lawyers; it is the quality of the file. Your court file from abroad should therefore contain, in order: the two written refusals (or the registered letters with acknowledgments of receipt proving 15 days of silence), the Banque de France designation, the complete identification pack (passports of all shareholders and directors, proof of address, articles of association, registered-office title, RBE beneficial-owner declaration details), the source-of-funds trail for the wired capital, the written answers to every compliance question the bank asked, and a dated chronology showing when each document was sent. File for summary proceedings (r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9) before the president of the commercial court for a company, seeking opening under astreinte and a provision for the commercial harm \u2014 the Locial case itself was brought “au visa des articles L. 312-1, D. 312-5 et D. 312-5-1 du code mon\u00e9taire et financier et de l’article 1240 du code civil” with exactly those heads of claim (“ordonner \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 BNP Paribas d’ouvrir son compte dans ses livres”, “la somme de 30.000 euros par provision au titre du pr\u00e9judice commercial”), which tells you the procedural vehicle even though that company’s claim failed on the merits of opacity:<\/p>\n “au visa des articles L. 312-1, D. 312-5 et D. 312-5-1 du code mon\u00e9taire et financier et de l’article 1240 du code civil” with the heads of claim “ordonner \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 BNP Paribas d’ouvrir son compte dans ses livres” and “la somme de 30.000 euros par provision au titre du pr\u00e9judice commercial” (Paris Court of Appeal, P\u00f4le 1 Chambre 2, 6 July 2023, RG 22\/17393<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Practical sequencing for a founder managing this from abroad: first, apply to two banks in parallel with the full compliance file and send each application by a traceable route so silence can be proved. Second, at the first written refusal, commission the notary or CDC capital deposit in parallel so the Kbis is not held hostage to the account dispute. Third, file the Banque de France designation request the day the refusal certificate arrives (or on day 16 after a silent application), attaching the compliance file again. Fourth, if the designated bank does not open within three business days of receiving the complete documents, have counsel send a formal demand (mise en demeure) referencing the designation, then file in r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9. Throughout, answer every bank question in writing within days \u2014 the Paris decision punishes an unanswered request for documents, while the Versailles decision rewards documented explanations:<\/p>\n “par courriel officiel du 9 novembre 2022 (pi\u00e8ce 2), le conseil de l’intim\u00e9e a demand\u00e9 au conseil de l’appelante son business model, l’identit\u00e9 de ses clients et les documents comptables et financiers, \u00e0 d\u00e9faut un bilan pr\u00e9visionnel, ce document \u00e9tant rest\u00e9 sans r\u00e9ponse de la part de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Locial.” (Paris Court of Appeal, P\u00f4le 1 Chambre 2, 6 July 2023, RG 22\/17393<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n And never confuse the capital deposit certificate with the current account: once the Kbis is issued, banks treat an existing, registered, tax-identified company very differently from a company in formation, so the incorporation itself often unblocks the file.<\/p>\n Two companion guides complete this picture for founders managing a French company from abroad: what happens when a French bank refuses or freezes your operating company account, including the notice rules for closures<\/a>, and the full mechanics of depositing and releasing your French company share capital from abroad<\/a>. The present guide focuses on the formation-stage deadlock and its court enforcement, decided in the two 2023 rulings analysed above.<\/p>\n A French bank may say no to your company in formation, but it must say so in writing, and its refusal must rest on verifiable anti-money-laundering grounds \u2014 identification of the client and beneficial owner, knowledge of the purpose and nature of the relationship, documentation proportionate to the risk \u2014 not on your foreign address alone. Your answers are layered: clean up the compliance file before the first application, route the share capital through a notary or the Caisse des d\u00e9p\u00f4ts if banks will not take the deposit, trigger the Banque de France designation on refusal, and ask the commercial court in summary proceedings to order the opening under a daily penalty when a designated bank resists without a legitimate reason. The two 2023 appeal rulings frame the entire battlefield: opacity loses even with a designation, transparency wins even against a large bank. Prepare the file as if you will have to show it to a judge, and in most cases you will never need to.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" No French bank will take your share capital and your SAS cannot be registered without the deposit certificate. This guide explains the notary and CDC alternative, the Banque de France designation procedure, and what two 2023 appeal rulings teach foreign founders about winning the file.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16287,"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-2151531","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-decryptage","category-doing-business-in-france"],"yoast_head":"\nI. Why French banks say no to a foreign-owned company in formation, and what the law requires of everyone<\/h2>\n
A. The capital deposit: your SAS cannot be born without a bank, a notary or the Caisse des d\u00e9p\u00f4ts<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
B. Anti-money-laundering controls: what the bank may \u2014 and must \u2014 ask a non-resident founder<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
II. When refusal becomes unlawful: the droit au compte procedure and the judge who forces the door open<\/h2>\n
A. Getting designated: the refusal letter, the Banque de France file and the basic-services account<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
B. Going to court: what the Paris and Versailles judges actually ordered, and the file that wins<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n