Banking and Financial Newsletter – November 2026
| Banque Finance |
1. Banking services
1.1. Texts and Publications by authorities
– FR / US | AMF & SEC | 20 October 2026 | Cross-border supervision: strengthened cooperation for investment firms and advisers
The French Financial Markets Authority (AMF) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have entered into a supervisory memorandum of understanding (MoU) establishing a framework for consultation, cooperation and information-sharing regarding certain investment service providers, investment advisers and investment companies operating in France and the United States under the supervision of either authority. The MoU is also intended to facilitate registration with, and supervision by, the SEC of AMF-supervised asset management companies seeking to operate in the United States as investment advisers. The SEC will take the MoU into account when reviewing new and pending registration applications and has announced that it will resume its review of the relevant applications.
– FR | Ministry of Economy and Finance | 20 October 2026 | Bank overdrafts: creditworthiness assessment extended from 20 November 2026
In a statement dated 20 October 2026, the Ministry of Economy and Finance clarified the reform resulting from the transposition of Directive (EU) 2023/2225. Bercy has specified that bank overdrafts will not be prohibited from 20 November 2026, contrary to certain interpretation of Order No. 2025-880 of 3 September 2025 on consumer credit. The reform instead extends the creditworthiness-assessment requirement to overdrafts of less than EUR 200 and to those repayable within one month, which were previously outside the scope of that statutory requirement.
Banks will therefore have to assess customers’ creditworthiness before granting any overdraft facility, including small and short-term facilities, using information proportionate to the nature, duration and amount of the credit and the risks faced by the borrower. Existing agreed overdraft facilities will remain available within their contractual limits without requiring a new creditworthiness assessment each time the account becomes overdrawn.
1.2. Case Law
– FR | Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber | 30 September 2026 | No. 25-17.038 | Investment services: warning an agent does not discharge the bank’s duty to inform the client personally
A client’s son, acting under a power of attorney, placed speculative orders in Greek bank shares on behalf of both himself and his mother. Although the bank had specifically warned him of the risks before the orders were transmitted, the Court of Appeal rejected the mother’s claim on the grounds that her agent had been duly informed.
The Court of Cassation quashed the ruling. A bank acting as an investment service provider must inform each client personally and warn them of the risks associated with speculative transactions, regardless of whether the client’s agent has already received such warnings. A power of attorney does not transfer to the agent the client’s personal right to be informed of those risks.
– FR | Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber | 7 October 2026 | No. 25-11.954 | Professional loan: express reference to the Consumer Code binds the bank
A loan financing a rental investment formed part of a professional activity and would therefore ordinarily have fallen outside the statutory consumer-credit regime. The accepted offer nevertheless expressly referred to the provisions of the French Consumer Code governing real-estate credit. The borrowers relied on that wording to seek forfeiture of the bank’s entitlement to interest on the grounds that the rules governing delivery of the offer had not been complied with.
The Court of Cassation held that parties may voluntarily subject a contract to a protective regime that would not otherwise apply, provided that their intention is clear and unequivocal. In the absence of fraud, an express reference to those provisions in the offer issued by the bank and accepted by the borrowers is sufficient to establish that intention, even where the wording is pre-printed and the loan has a professional purpose. As the issuer of the offer, the bank is in a position to ascertain the purpose of the loan before issuing it and is therefore bound by the regime to which it has referred.
2. AML/CFT
– EU | AMLA | 7 October 2026 | Consultation on draft standards for the EU-wide AML/CFT central database
The European Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AMLA) has launched a consultation on draft regulatory technical standards under Article 11(6) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1620. The standards specify the information that supervisory authorities will be required to submit to the future central AML/CFT database, together with the applicable scope, level of detail, formats and reporting deadlines. The database is intended to serve as a single entry point for supervisory information across the Union and to support more targeted, risk-based and effective supervision.
The proposed reporting covers information on supervisory authorities and self-regulatory bodies, the risk profiles and controls of individual obliged entities, administrative measures and sanctions, fit-and-proper and authorisation-related opinions, supervisory activities, and staffing and resources. AMLA proposes comprehensive reporting of entity-level risk data and enforcement measures, combined with staggered reporting deadlines and phased implementation. The standards also address additional information requests, data quality, confidentiality and onward disclosure. AMLA indicates that the framework should rely primarily on information already held by supervisors and should not create new reporting obligations for obliged entities.
A public hearing is scheduled for 3 November 2026. This consultation marks a further step towards a harmonised EU AML/CFT supervisory framework, providing supervisory authorities and stakeholders with an opportunity to contribute to the development of the central database ahead of AMLA’s progressive assumption of its supervisory coordination and oversight responsibilities.
3. Payments
– FR | Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber | 8 October 2026 | No. 25-17.510 | President fraud: a Payment Service Provider (PSP)cannot invoke gross negligence where it executed an order received through an instrument no longer agreed with its customer
A company was the victim of CEO fraud after an employee sent the bank, by fax, a transfer order bearing the president’s forged signature. The bank executed the transfer even though, since March 2017, the parties had agreed to use a secure software-based transmission system and the company no longer sent payment orders by fax.
The Court of Cassation held that, under Articles L. 133-16 and L. 133-19, IV of the French Monetary and Financial Code, interpreted in light of Articles 69 and 74 of PSD2, a payment service provider may rely on the customer’s gross negligence only where the customer breached obligations relating to the agreed payment instrument or the security of its personalised security credentials. Since fax was no longer the payment-order transmission method agreed between the parties, the bank, which had nevertheless accepted and executed the order by that means, could not rely on the company’s gross negligence to refuse reimbursement. The Court of Appeal’s decision was therefore quashed.
– EU | Court of Justice of the European Union | 15 October 2026 | Case C-70/25, Tukowiecka | Unauthorised payment transactions: alleged gross negligence does not suspend the PSP’s immediate refund obligation
Following a phishing scam, a customer disclosed her online-banking credentials on a fraudulent website, enabling a third party to transfer approximately EUR 700 from her account. The bank refused to refund the unauthorised transaction, arguing that the customer had facilitated the fraud through gross negligence in failing to protect her personalised security credentials.
The Court of Justice held that Articles 73(1) and 74(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (PSD2) establish two distinct stages. First, unless the payment service provider (PSP) has reasonable grounds for suspecting fraud by the payer and communicates those grounds in writing to the relevant national authority, it must refund the unauthorised transaction immediately and no later than the end of the following business day. Gross negligence on the part of the payer does not constitute an exception to this immediate refund obligation. Second, the PSP may subsequently seek recovery from the payer if it proves that the losses resulted from the payer’s failure, intentionally or through gross negligence, to comply with the obligations under Article 69 PSD2, including the obligation to safeguard personalized security credentials. The burden of proving gross negligence rests with the PSP.
4. Digital finance
– FR | French authorities | 21 October 2026 | MiCA review: joint proposals on stablecoins, supervision and DeFi
The French Treasury, the AMF, the Banque de France and the Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR) have published a joint response to the European Commission’s consultation on the review of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA). They support retaining separate legal regimes for crypto-assets and financial instruments, while clarifying MiCA’s interaction with the legislation on financial instruments and payment services and pursuing greater convergence between the two frameworks in the longer term.
They also advocate a stronger role for ESMA in supervising the crypto-asset activities of significant crypto-asset service providers and crypto-conglomerates, together with a more coordinated response to unauthorised providers targeting EU investors.
The proposals further aim to to promote euro-denominated e-money tokens and tokenised bank deposits, particularly for cross-border payments and tokenised finance, while prohibiting EU-authorized crypto-asset service providers from providing services in relation to stablecoins that do not comply with MiCA. Multi-issuance, whereby fungible tokens are issued both in the Union and in third countries, would be governed by a framework based on equivalence assessments and supervisory cooperation, with additional safeguards concerning reserves and redemption rights. For decentralized finance, the authorities favour a secure and proportionate framework based on clearly defined intermediary responsibility , appropriate due diligence obligations and protocol certification, together with clearer rules for staking and crypto-asset lending and borrowing.