This post is also available in:
Bank transfers linked to investments: no duty to warn
(French Supreme Court, 25 March 2026, No. 25-10.353)
The French Supreme Court has recently clarified the scope of bank liability in the context of transfers carried out for investment purposes.
It confirmed a key principle:
when executing a transfer, a bank acts as a payment service provider (PSP), not as an investment advisor.
1. Background
A client instructed her bank to execute three transfers (EUR 90,000 in total) to a German account in order to invest in crypto-assets.
After losing the funds, she brought a claim against the bank, alleging a failure to warn and a breach of its duty of vigilance.
The Court of Appeal found the bank partially liable, relying on:
- the high amounts involved,
- the unusual nature of the transactions,
- the foreign destination of the funds,
and held that the bank should have warned the client against risky investments.
2. Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court overturned the decision.
It held that:
when a bank executes a transfer for investment purposes, it acts as a payment service provider and is not subject to any duty to advise or warn regarding the investment.
As a result:
- no duty to advise,
- no duty to warn on investment risks.
This approach is consistent with the principle of non-interference in the client’s affairs.
This must also be read in light of the PSD2 framework governing payment services:
https://droitbancaire.be/psd-2-projet-de-loi-portant-modification-insertion-de-dispositions-matiere-de-services-de-paiement-differents-livres-code-de-droit-economique-a-ete-depose-gouvernement/
3. Limited duty: apparent anomalies
The bank remains subject to a duty of vigilance.
However, this duty is strictly limited to detecting apparent anomalies, meaning:
- objective irregularities,
- detectable without investigation,
- by a reasonably diligent professional.
The bank is not required to assess the relevance or risk of the investment.
4. What does not qualify as an apparent anomaly
The Court implicitly clarified that the following elements are not sufficient:
- high transaction amounts,
- unusual transactions,
- transfers to foreign accounts,
even when they involve the client’s entire savings.
5. Practical implications
This decision is important in practice.
It:
- limits attempts to extend bank liability,
- refocuses litigation on the concept of apparent anomalies,
- prevents banks from being treated as investment advisors.
It should also be read together with case law on fraud and phishing, where the client’s gross negligence is often decisive:
https://droitbancaire.be/phishing-responsabilite-banque/
6. Conclusion
The distinction is clear:
- payment service provider = execution
- advisor = assessment
A bank is not responsible for the economic relevance of a client’s investment.
Its role is limited to executing transactions and identifying obvious anomalies.
See also our publications on payment services:
https://droitbancaire.be/category/services-de-paiement/
Leave a Reply