(French Supreme Court, 25 March 2026, No. 25-10.353)<\/em><\/p>\n The French Supreme Court has recently clarified the scope of bank liability in the context of transfers carried out for investment purposes.<\/p>\n It confirmed a key principle: 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.<\/p>\n After losing the funds, she brought a claim against the bank, alleging a failure to warn and a breach of its duty of vigilance.<\/p>\n The Court of Appeal found the bank partially liable, relying on:<\/p>\n and held that the bank should have warned the client against risky investments.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court overturned the decision.<\/p>\n It held that:<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n As a result:<\/p>\n This approach is consistent with the principle of non-interference in the client\u2019s affairs<\/strong>.<\/p>\n This must also be read in light of the PSD2 framework governing payment services: The bank remains subject to a duty of vigilance.<\/p>\n However, this duty is strictly limited to detecting apparent anomalies<\/strong>, meaning:<\/p>\n The bank is not required to assess the relevance or risk of the investment.<\/p>\n The Court implicitly clarified that the following elements are not sufficient:<\/p>\n even when they involve the client\u2019s entire savings.<\/p>\n This decision is important in practice.<\/p>\n It:<\/p>\n It should also be read together with case law on fraud and phishing, where the client\u2019s gross negligence is often decisive: The distinction is clear:<\/p>\n A bank is not responsible for the economic relevance of a client\u2019s investment.<\/p>\n Its role is limited to executing transactions and identifying obvious anomalies.<\/p>\n
when executing a transfer, a bank acts as a payment service provider (PSP), not as an investment advisor.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n1. Background<\/h3>\n
\n
\n2. Supreme Court ruling<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
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\/<\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Limited duty: apparent anomalies<\/h3>\n
\n
\n4. What does not qualify as an apparent anomaly<\/h3>\n
\n
\n5. Practical implications<\/h3>\n
\n
https:\/\/droitbancaire.be\/phishing-responsabilite-banque\/<\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. Conclusion<\/h3>\n
\n
\nMore on this topic<\/h3>\n