There fraud bank transfer has become a national sport. According to the Ministry of the Interior, 417,300 French people were victims of payment fraud in 2024, or 1.4% more than in 2023. The Banque de France estimates the amount embezzled through manipulation fraud at 245 million euros in the first half of 2025 alone. Fake bank advisors, false RIBs transmitted to an accounting department, the techniques have become more sophisticated with artificial intelligence.
The Labaronne law of November 6, 2025 created the national file of accounts flagged for fraud risk (FNC-RF), operational since May 7, 2026 and managed by the Bank of France. This register centralizes the IBAN suspects. For the victim, the right to reimbursement remains structured by a pre-existing regime. “The bank must reimburse when the transfer has not been authorized by the customer and he has reported this without delay, at the latest within 13 months.recalls Cédric Donnars, jurist in banking law, ex-lawyer and editor of the Youtube channel What does the law say? – Banking and Finance.
What the file changes, what it doesn’t change
The FNC-RF responds to a long-denounced flaw. THE banking secrecy until now prevented establishments from sharing with each other the details of mule accounts, these accounts used by crooks to receive diverted transfers. A reported account at one bank could continue to receive funds from three other institutions for several days. The law of November 2025 created an express exemption from banking secrecy to populate the centralized file, which must be consulted by banks before executing a transfer. This system is in addition to another obligation which came into force in October 2025, the verification of concordance between the IBAN and the name of the beneficiary before any transfer.
But this prevention tool has not modified the legal regime of reimbursement. Articles L.133-18 et seq. of the Monetary and Financial Code continue to govern the processing of unauthorized transactions. The principle is protective for the client. “The bank can only refuse if it proves both that the transaction is technically regular and that the customer has engaged in fraudulent behavior or demonstrated serious negligence.explains Cédric Donnars. The burden of proof therefore falls on the establishment, not on the client, and recent case law confirms this reading grid.
The FNC-RF can nevertheless strengthen the client’s position in the event of litigation. If the bank carried out a transfer to an IBAN which appeared in the file or should have appeared there, its duty of vigilance may be called into question. The courts have already condemned several major brands for failure of control, the Paris judicial court having ordered BNP Paribas on April 14, 2026 to reimburse 25,360 euros to a victim of a false advisor, despite the validation of the transfers by digital key. A similar decision targeted Boursorama at the Toulouse judicial court in 2025.
Instructions for fraudulent transfers
The first reflex is reactivity. “As soon as you see a suspicious transfer, block your payment methods, immediately contest the transactions in writing with your bank and file a complaint.summarizes the lawyer. The legal period for contesting runs up to 13 months after the Speedbut the wording “without delay” of the Monetary and Financial Code requires in practice to act upon discovery. A late dispute may be held against the client during examination of the file, even if the 13-month deadline has not passed.
On the evidence side, thesaver must keep everything. SMS received, questionable emails, screenshots of the banking application, call history, authentication notifications, each element can weigh in the analysis of the dispute. “This evidence will be useful to obtain reimbursement.”specifies Cédric Donnars. The key point is to demonstrate that the fraud was not detectable by a normally attentive user. Case law in fact retains the notion of a normally attentive user to assess the neglect serious, which excludes an overly broad reading of the customer’s imprudence.
In the event of refusal of reimbursement, several remedies are available. There mediation bankingwhich can be entered by internet or mail, handles disputes free of charge within 90 days. The Prudential Supervision and Resolution Authority (ACPR) can be alerted in the event of a structural failure by the establishment. The judicial court remains the last resort after failure of amicable means. “Recent decisions remain generally protective of victims.concludes Cédric Donnars. There bank must first prove that its system worked, and then only demonstrate gross negligence on the part of the client.
The figures relating to fraud come from the 2024 report of the Payment Means Security Observatory published in September 2025 and the Ministry of the Interior. The case law references cited come from court decisions available in the specialized press. This article does not constitute personalized legal advice.
