Cross-border Fraud Claims in France: What Banks Need to Know

May 20th, 2026

Article by Christophe Jacomin, and Jeremy Martin Shenaj, for the 12th edition of LIR France

Fraudulent wire transfers have become a litigation risk in France. Banque de France figures show that transfer fraud increased from approximately EUR 160 million in the first half of 2024 to EUR 230 million in the first half of 2025, with online banking accounting for most of that fraud by value. Many disputes now concern authorised push payment fraud, where the payment order is formally valid because it was initiated by the customer or an authorised signatory, but the consent behind it was vitiated by fraud or manipulation.

For foreign recipient banks sued in France, the decisive issue is not whether fraud occurred but how French law characterises the transfer and which liability regime follows from that characterisation.

The first lesson from recent case law is that the distinction between authorised and unauthorised payments is the threshold issue. If the transaction is classified as unauthorised or defectively executed, the special payment-services regime under Articles L.133-18 to L133-24 of the French Monetary and Financial Code applies on an exclusive basis. In two decisions dated January 15, 2025, the Cour de cassation confirmed that a claimant cannot circumvent that regime by repackaging the dispute as an ordinary tort or contractual vigilance claim. For foreign defendants, that point is critical because it may determine the framework of the case.

However, unauthorised-payment litigation is not automatically resolved in favour of banks. Recent decisions of April 30, 2025, and June 12, 2025, confirm that, if a bank seeks to shift the loss to the customer on the basis of gross negligence, it bears the burden of proof. The bank must show that the transaction was properly authenticated, recorded and booked, and was not affected by a technical deficiency. Mere reliance on the customer’s gullibility or recklessness is insufficient.

On the case falls outside the exclusive payment-services regime, French law returns to the duty of non-interference. Banks are not expected to supervise the commercial wisdom of their clients’ instructions. That principle is nevertheless limited by the obligation to react to apparent anomalies. In the October 2, 2024, CEO-fraud decision, the Court approved liability because the transfers combined several warning signs: unusual amounts, repeated orders within a short period, unfamiliar beneficiaries, and a destination outside the customer’s usual geographical sphere of business. By contrast, in a decision of June 12, 2025, the Court held that no anomaly arose where the transfers remained within the agreed limits, were covered by the account balance, and were sent to an account held with a licensed bank in another EU Member State.

For foreign recipient banks, the key authority is the January 14, 2026, Heppner decision. The Cour de cassation held that a beneficiary bank is not required to investigate the origin or scale of incoming funds as long as the transactions appear regular and show no sign of falsification. Large or repeated incoming credits are not, by themselves, sufficient apparent anomalies.

A further source of risk concerns the recall procedure. Article L133-21 requires cooperation in recovering funds, and the EPC SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook requires the beneficiary bank to answer a recall within 15 banking business days. Recent French decisions suggest that liability may arise not through handling, not only from the original execution. Legal characterisation, prompt recall handling, and robust internal records have become central elements of any credible defence.

Practice Area News

The Labronne Law (Law No. 2025-1058 of November 6, 2025) is intended to strengthen the fight against bank fraud. Its main practical measure is the creation of a Banque de France national file (FNC-RF) listing payment and deposit accounts that have been signalled as fraudulent. Listing does not automatically block payments or justify closing the account, but it does require the account-holding institution to carry out immediate checks (Article L. 521-6-1 IV of the French Monetary and Financial Code).

In its March 25,2026, decision (Com. No. 24-18.093), the Cour de cassation confirmed a strict approach to authorised payments. The Court, after treating the payment as authorised, recalled that the bank’s duty of vigilance depends on the existence of an apparent anomaly in the payment order. Where no such apparent anomaly is established, the bank will not be held liable for having executed the transfer.

The Law of February 23,2026 on the confidentiality of in-house lawyers’ legal opinions creates a limited form of confidentiality for qualifying internal legal advice. To benefit from it, the opinion must meet the statutory conditions and bear the required wording. The protection applies in civil, commercial and administrative matters, but not in criminal or tax proceedings, and the company may waive it. It will enter into force no later than February 1st, 2027.