A transfer involves two banks: the issuer, which executes the order, and the beneficiary, which receives the funds. Each applies its own rules of treatment. Depending on the amount, origin of the funds or the situation of the receiving account, the beneficiary bank may refuse to register the transfer, regardless of any decision of the issuing bank.
Why the bank of the beneficiary can refuse an incoming transfer
A rejection of transfer may beautomatic(deleted by the receiving bank system without human intervention) ormanual(initiated by a compliance officer). In both cases, the funds are returned to the issuing bank, which re-credits them to the sender's account.
| Cause of refusal | Type of blockage | Frequency |
| Closed or non-existent account | Automatic | Very common |
| IBAN incorrect or misunderstood | Automatic | Common |
| Locked account (seizure, succession, liquidation) | Automatic | Moderate |
| Exceeding the configured reception ceiling | Automatic | Moderate |
| Suspicion of fraud or money laundering | Manual | Moderate |
| Account not eligible for incoming transfers (e.g. regulated livret) | Automatic | Uncommon |
A booklet A or an LDDS may only be transferred from the associated current account within the same institution. Any external transfer to this type of account is automatically rejected.
Can a bank legally block an incoming transfer?
Yes, in several separate legal frameworks. The European DSP2 Directive (transposed into French law by Ordinance No. 2017-1252) regulates the obligations of payment service providers, without forcing them to accept all incoming funds unconditionally.
The Monetary and Financial Code (Article L.561-1 et seq.) imposes on credit institutions due diligence obligations in the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism (LCB-FT). A bank may block an incoming transfer if it identifies a risk, without being required to inform the account holder or the sender.
The blockage may also result from a seizure-assignment by a judicial officer, from a collective procedure (arrest or liquidation of the court) or from an administrative freeze of assets ordered by the Treasury Directorate. In these situations, the bank executes a competent authority decision and must return the funds to the issuing institution.
Time limits for the return of funds after a rejected transfer
The rejected funds are returned to the issuing bank within time limits that vary according to the type of transfer:
- Instant SEPA transfer rejected: back in a few minutes to a few hours
- Standard SEPA transfer rejected: return within 1 to 5 working days after the initial execution date
- Domestic transfer France rejected: return within 2 to 3 working days
- SWIFT international transfer rejected: return within 5 to 10 working days, sometimes more when several corresponding banks are involved in the processing chain
These periods run from the time when the receiving bank registers the rejection, particularly in the case of transfers toregulated investment platforms, which frequently transit through multi-corresponding SWIFT circuits. Beyond this, the issuer must contact its own institution and request a trace of the transaction (reference number or TxID).
What to do when a transfer does not arrive in his account?
A transfer may not appear on the beneficiary's account for two separate reasons: a simple delay in processing or an effective rejection. The procedures to be followed differ depending on the case, and a few audits allow for a quick decision.
Checks to be carried out first
The beneficiary must check the IBAN which he communicated to the issuer, character by character, comparing it with his official RIB. Only one error is enough to redirect funds or trigger an automatic rejection.
He must also verify that his account is active and eligible for receiving transfers. Some accounts have temporary restrictions after a bank change or an ongoing closing request. Finally, he must confirm with the issuer that the transfer has been executed and retrieve his reference number.
Contact your bank: the right steps
With the reference number, the beneficiary may apply to his or her advisor for aseeking inward funds. The bank is required to trace all transactions received and rejected, including those not notified to the holder.
The transmitter may, for its part, trigger areminder of transferto his bank. This procedure, provided for by the SEPA Scheme, requires the receiving bank to reply within 10 working days. In the absence of a response, the issuing institution increases demand via interbank circuits.
What recourse is possible if the bank refuses to return the funds?
If there is no follow-up, several formal remedies are available, to be activated in the following order:
- Formal written claimat the bank's complaints department (legal deadline: 10 working days to acknowledge receipt, up to 35 working days to provide a substantive response)
- Referral to the Banking Ombudsman, possible after 2 months without satisfactory response or in case of explicit rejection of the complaint (free mediation, 90 days notice)
- Report to ACPR(Supervisory and Resolution Authority), which supervises credit institutions and can intervene in cases of regulatory default
- Judicial remedybefore the competent court, to be preferred for significant amounts or after failure of the mediation (procedure for interim proceedings allows for a speedy decision)
The Ombudsman's referral suspends the statute of limitations, which allows for the preservation of his rights before taking legal action.
Transfer blocked for suspicion of fraud: a particular case
When an incoming transfer triggers an alert in the receiving bank system (unusual amount, unusual geographical origin, reported payer profile), the bank may block the funds without informing the account holder. Under the LCB-FT scheme, it cannot reveal that an internal alert has been made: this is the non-disclosure obligation provided for in the Monetary and Financial Code.
The National Financial Intelligence Unit (Tracfin), which receives reports of suspicion, may or may not authorize the continuation of the transaction. This process can span several weeks. If the account holder considers the blocking to be unjustified, the bank mediator remains seizable, although his prerogatives are limited in cases involving regulatory compliance.