A bank which carries out a transfer order intended to finance an investment owes no duty to warn (devoir de mise en garde) about the risks of that investment. The commercial chamber so holds under Article 1231-1 of the French Civil Code: in receiving the order, the bank acts as a payment services provider and remains required not to interfere in its customer's affairs.
Key points
- A bank which receives a transfer order for the purpose of making an investment acts as a payment services provider.
- In that capacity, it owes neither advice nor a warning about the risks of the planned investment.
- The prohibition on the bank interfering in its customer's affairs is the basis for the absence of any such duty.
- The amount of the transfers, their repetition or the foreign location of the recipient account do not, in themselves, create a duty to alert the customer about the quality of the investment.
Why was the judgment against the bank quashed?
The commercial chamber quashes the decision that had held the bank liable: carrying out transfers intended for an investment imposes no duty to warn about the risks of that investment (Com., 25 March 2026, No. 25-10.353). On 17 July 2018, a customer asked their bank to carry out three transfers from their account to an account opened with a German bank, in order to make investments on the crypto-asset market. The funds were lost. The customer then brought proceedings against the bank for damages, alleging a breach of a duty of vigilance and of the duty to warn.
The decision under appeal (CA Grenoble, 12 November 2024, No. 23/00978) ordered the bank to compensate the loss of chance (perte de chance) of not entering into a contract with the platform receiving the transfers. The appeal judges pointed to the number of transfers, their amount, the unusual character of the operations in the light of how the accounts operated, and the German location of the recipient bank. They inferred from this a breach of the duties of diligence and to warn, directly linked to the loss of the funds.
The commercial chamber quashes that decision in all its provisions, under Article 1231-1 of the French Civil Code, the provision governing the liability of the debtor of a contractual obligation. It remits the case to the Chambéry court of appeal, which will retry the dispute. The rule is stated in general terms, with no regard to the amount transferred or to the destination of the funds (free translation):
It follows from this provision that a bank which receives a transfer order for the purpose of making an investment acts as a payment services provider and that, since it is required not to interfere in its customer's affairs, it owes no duty to provide advice or to warn as to the risks of the planned investment.
The bank's duty to warn: what scope?
A customer who orders a transfer in order to invest cannot expect their bank to assess the quality of the investment. In carrying out the order, the bank acts as a payment services provider: its task is to transfer the funds, not to evaluate the transaction being financed. The principle of non-interference prevents it from becoming involved in its customer's affairs. From that prohibition, the commercial chamber infers the absence of any duty to provide advice or to warn about the risks of the planned investment.
The consequence for compensation claims is direct. A loss of chance of not contracting with a platform cannot be compensated merely because the bank failed to alert its customer against a risky investment. Neither the repetition of the transfers, nor their amount, nor the country of the recipient account gives rise in itself to such a duty to alert. A customer suing their bank must therefore rely on a breach of a different nature.
Duty of vigilance: what remains open
The decision settles a precise question: whether there is a duty to provide advice or to warn about the risks of the investment financed by the transfer. The appeal judges had held that the bank, while owing no duty to provide advice, remains bound by a duty of vigilance and to warn, confined to anomalies detectable without specific investigation. They turned indicators of anomaly into a duty to alert the customer about the nature of their investment. The commercial chamber censures precisely that inference.
The scope of the solution stops there. The decision does not deprive the customer of every remedy against their bank; it excludes advice and warnings as to the risks of the planned investment. The Cour de cassation (France's highest civil court) did not examine the other complaints raised in the appeal. Since the quashing covers the decision in all its provisions, the dispute will be retried before the Chambéry court of appeal: nothing is definitively settled between the parties as matters stand after this decision of 25 March 2026.
What practical steps for an investment transfer?
Assessing the investment is a matter for the investor, not for the bank carrying out the transfer. The decision notes that the recipient platform did not appear on the blacklist of the Autorité des marchés financiers (the French financial markets regulator), a circumstance which prevented neither the loss of the funds nor the litigation. An investor, whether an individual or a company, cannot therefore shift onto the institution holding their account the burden of checking the soundness of the transaction they are funding.
For banks, the line drawn is useful in defence. An unusual investment does not give rise to a duty for the bank to provide advice on the investment itself. For investors, the argument is better built on a basis distinct from a warning about the risks of the investment, since that route is closed by the decision discussed here.
Checks before a transfer to a platform
- Identify the recipient platform, its status and its location before any transfer of funds.
- Do not rely on the institution holding the account to assess the profitability or the reliability of the investment.
- Keep the written exchanges with the bank adviser, including the questions asked at the time of the order.
- Before bringing an action against the bank, check that the breach relied on does not amount merely to a failure to provide advice or to warn about the risks of the investment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is my bank liable if I lose money transferred to an investment platform?
No, not on the basis of the duty to warn. Under the decision of 25 March 2026, a bank which receives a transfer order for the purpose of making an investment acts as a payment services provider and owes neither advice nor a warning about the risks of the investment. Liability remains conceivable, but it requires a breach of a different nature from that duty to alert.
Does an unusually large transfer abroad require my bank to alert me?
No, those circumstances alone do not create a duty to alert the customer about the investment. The court of appeal had relied on the number of transfers, their high amount, the unusual character of the operations and the foreign location of the recipient account. The commercial chamber quashed that reasoning: such indicators do not turn the bank into the investor's adviser as to the risks of the financed transaction.
What does the ban on a bank interfering in its customer's affairs mean?
It means that the bank must not become involved in its customer's economic decisions or question whether they are advisable. In the decision of 25 March 2026, that prohibition is the direct basis for the absence of any duty to provide advice or to warn about the risks of the investment financed by the transfer. The institution carries out the order received; it does not have to assess the merits of the investment for which the funds leave.
How can a breach by a bank be proved in a dispute over transfers?
The burden of proof lies in principle on the party alleging the breach. It is built from the available documents: signed orders, account statements, emails and letters exchanged with the adviser, and records of meetings. The court then assesses whether the obligation relied on actually bound the bank, and whether its non-performance caused the customer certain damage. A mere financial loss never suffices to establish a breach.
Can a company sue its bank after a transfer fraud?
An action remains possible, but it requires proof of three cumulative elements: a precise obligation binding the bank, its non-performance, and damage flowing directly from it. The mere fact that a third party committed a fraud does not suffice to render the institution liable. The central question is therefore the exact identification of the obligation said to have been breached, before any discussion of the amount claimed.