A Moroccan payment institution proposes to let residents of France send euros to relatives’ Moroccan payment accounts. This composite case concerns the authorisation, contracts and settlement arrangements required at each end of that transfer. Should the group establish its own authorised European business, use a French-authorised remittance principal, or remain a Moroccan payout provider? The proposed initial product is a bank-funded transfer with no reusable euro balance. The recommendation assumes that the Moroccan institution obtains the permissions and arrangements described below before performing the corresponding activities.
Executive Summary
- Start with a French-authorised remittance principal and retain the Moroccan company as the recipient’s payment-account and payout provider. The principal should contract with the sender, control euro collection and accept an express Moroccan-credit or refund obligation. This is a recommended allocation of responsibility, not an automatic statutory guarantee covering every foreign payout failure. (Code monétaire et financier, arts. L. 521-2 and L. 133-1 IV.)
- A Moroccan payment permission provides no French or European Economic Area (EEA) passport. An EEA alternative must hold the relevant authorisation and complete the procedures for serving France. French simplified payment-institution authorisation excludes money remittance. (Code monétaire et financier, art. L. 522-13; ACPR, “Passeporter mon activité” and payment-institution authorisation guidance.)
- Moroccan payment-account authority must cover the proposed transfer activity. Bank Al-Maghrib (BAM) requires notification of agreements with foreign money-transfer companies; notification cannot enlarge a restricted approval. Use a documented Moroccan-bank settlement and conversion path rather than treating the wallet licence as unrestricted foreign-exchange authority. (Law No. 103-12, arts. 15, 16 and 34; BAM Circular No. 6/W/2016, art. 10; Office des Changes, “Opérations sur les comptes ouverts auprès des correspondants à l’étranger”, art. 227.)
- Keep the principal’s euro safeguarding separate from Moroccan wallet safeguarding. Name the account holder, customer claims, conversion provider and point of discharge in the contracts. Neither customer-fund pool should finance the group’s operating expenses. (Code monétaire et financier, art. L. 522-17; Law No. 103-12, art. 17.)
- Give the French sender one complaints route through the principal, while preserving the recipient’s Moroccan account remedies. A one-ended transfer does not carry every execution and liability rule applicable to an intra-European payment. The contract must address rejection, delayed credit, refunds and exchange differences. (Code monétaire et financier, arts. L. 133-1 IV and L. 133-45; BAM Circular No. 6/W/2016, arts. 20–21.)
- Establish an owned European institution only when the group can sustain its management, capital, safeguarding and control functions. Until the principal, Moroccan permissions, bank arrangements and data-transfer conditions are in place, remain within Moroccan distribution and payout. Authorisation conditions cannot be replaced by commercial readiness. (ACPR, payment-institution authorisation guidance; Law No. 103-12, art. 34.)
The service sold to the French sender
The initial product should use money remittance without a reusable European payment account. ACPR’s nonbinding guidance describes this service as receiving funds, without opening payment accounts for the payer or payee, to transmit a corresponding amount. Transmission may reach the beneficiary through another payment-service provider. Bank-transfer funding does not remove the service from that category. The Moroccan recipient’s separate wallet therefore does not, by itself, convert the French principal’s service into European account provision. (ACPR, “J’encaisse des fonds et les reverse à une tierce personne”, discussion of service 6 under Code monétaire et financier, art. L. 314-1 II.)
Product changes require a new classification. An account maintained by the European provider can engage account-based payment services. E-money requires the statutory characteristics of electronically stored monetary value: a claim on the issuer, issuance against funds and acceptance by someone other than the issuer. A balance labelled “wallet” does not settle that question. An information-only provider cannot receive customer funds merely because its interface connects to a bank. (ACPR, “En savoir plus sur les établissements de monnaie électronique et la monnaie électronique”; “J’encaisse des fonds et les reverse à une tierce personne”.)
The Moroccan entity should not promise the French-resident transfer in its own name under the proposed partner structure. French law prohibits habitual payment-service provision by persons outside the authorised categories. ACPR’s published passport guidance concerns authorised EEA institutions and the relevant notification procedures. A BAM approval is outside that passport system. Incorporating a French marketing company, displaying a partner’s logo or collecting funds through another firm’s account does not establish the required provider status. (Code monétaire et financier, arts. L. 521-2 and L. 522-13; ACPR, “Passeporter mon activité”.)
The first route and the alternatives
The recommended first route places a French-authorised principal between the sender and the transfer chain. That provider should approve onboarding, accept payment orders and issue the sender terms. It should control collection, safeguarding, the retail exchange quotation and refunds. The Moroccan institution would maintain the recipient’s account and execute local credit and cash withdrawal. This allocation follows the territorial permissions each party must possess; it also gives the sender an identified contractual debtor. (Code monétaire et financier, art. L. 521-2; Law No. 103-12, arts. 15–17 and 34.)
The principal may be a credit institution, a payment institution authorised for remittance, or an e-money institution authorised for that payment service. Its actual permission must cover the transaction. (ACPR, “J’encaisse des fonds et les reverse à une tierce personne”.)
A passported EEA principal can replace a French-authorised institution after completing the relevant French entry procedures. The group must examine the precise legal entity and services, rather than relying on a brand’s European presence. The home authorisation and French passport must cover the actual service. An agent registration does not give the agent an independent authorisation to offer its own transfer product. (Code monétaire et financier, art. L. 522-13; ACPR, “Passeporter mon activité” and “Agent de PSP et PSP : qui fait quoi ?”.)
An owned French institution would assume the principal’s duties itself. ACPR examines the applicant’s management, shareholders, financial resources, safeguarding and controls, with its registered office and central administration in France. Its guidance identifies €20,000 initial capital for remittance-only payment institutions and €125,000 for specified broader payment services. Those amounts are authorisation thresholds, not launch budgets or estimates of continuing expenditure. French simplified authorisation excludes money remittance and offers no passport. (ACPR, payment-institution authorisation guidance; “En savoir plus sur les établissements de paiement”.)
Ownership becomes preferable when the group has sufficient resources and a documented business case for direct control. The assessment should compare retained economics and product control against management, banking, compliance and technology expenditure. An owned entity still needs Moroccan payout authority and lawful settlement. The investment decision should require evidence that any proposed funding from Morocco can follow the bank’s documented foreign-exchange basis. The Office des Changes’ published Article 227 describes outward entries in banks’ foreign-correspondent accounts under the instruction or a particular authorisation. That account-entry provision does not itself authorise the underlying foreign investment. Corporate ownership cannot replace the necessary payment permissions or settlement arrangements. (Office des Changes, “Opérations sur les comptes ouverts auprès des correspondants à l’étranger”, art. 227.)
The Moroccan-only route is the appropriate fallback when the partner structure cannot meet those conditions. The company may undertake the local services within its approval and distribute Moroccan accounts through permitted outlets. Under that narrower design, an independently authorised overseas provider originates the transfer. The Moroccan firm does not independently contract with French senders, collect their euros or present itself as their remittance provider. This route preserves local operations but does not deliver the proposed French-facing service in the group’s own name. (Law No. 103-12, arts. 15, 16 and 34; Code monétaire et financier, art. L. 521-2.)
French advertising and agency
French advertisements should identify the legal transfer provider before the customer submits an order. Co-branding should distinguish the sender’s principal from the Moroccan payout institution. The French-language interface should reproduce that allocation at registration, quotation, confirmation and complaint submission. These are recommended controls against an interface contradicting the contractual structure. They do not make an otherwise unauthorised service lawful. (Code monétaire et financier, art. L. 521-2; ACPR, “Agent de PSP et PSP : qui fait quoi ?”.)
The marketer’s actual functions determine whether an agency arrangement is required. A company that performs payment services for the principal must hold a mandate and complete the applicable registration before acting. The principal remains responsible for its payment agents. A referral arrangement must remain within its stated functions; accepting payment orders or operating customer-payment functions cannot be relabelled advertising. ACPR’s agent guidance requires prior registration and disclosure of the principal’s identity. (Code monétaire et financier, arts. L. 523-1 and L. 523-3; ACPR, “Agent prestataire de services de paiement”.)
Solicitation requires a separate assessment. Article L. 341-1 addresses unsolicited approaches intended to obtain agreement to specified financial transactions or services. Writing an advertisement in French is not, alone, the statutory test. Direct messages, telephone approaches and in-person solicitation require review of the actual conduct and permitted solicitor. The initial design should prohibit the Moroccan marketing team from accepting French orders or euros outside the approved principal’s process. (Code monétaire et financier, art. L. 341-1.)
Moroccan permission and foreign-transfer agreements
The Moroccan institution needs an approval that covers the services it will perform. Law No. 103-12 permits payment institutions to provide specified payment services, including transfers and payment-account operations. BAM may limit an approval to only part of the requested activities. The approval decision and its conditions must therefore support incoming transfers, recipient accounts and the proposed outlet functions. Domestic account permission alone should not be treated as an unrestricted incoming-transfer mandate. (Law No. 103-12, arts. 15, 16 and 34.)
BAM’s payment-service rules expressly address receipt in Morocco of transfers originating abroad. Circular No. 6/W/2016 requires notification to BAM whenever an agreement with a foreign money-transfer company is concluded or terminated. That notification is distinct from obtaining the necessary activity scope. The contractual principal, settlement participants and payout responsibilities should match the notified arrangement. Where the approved activities exclude a proposed function, the company must obtain the necessary BAM permission before performing it. (BAM Circular No. 7/W/2016, art. 2; Circular No. 6/W/2016, art. 10; Law No. 103-12, art. 34.)
The wallet’s identification tier, balance headroom and applicable transaction limits must permit each incoming credit. A transfer limit, an account-balance ceiling and a flow limit answer different questions. Splitting a payment across wallets should not become a workaround for customer identification or aggregate controls. The implementation should reject or hold an instruction before promising an unavailable credit. (BAM Circular No. 7/W/2016, art. 9, as amended; Law No. 43-05, arts. 3–4.)
Licentium’s Morocco licensing hub provides wider jurisdiction background. The permissions needed for this transaction must come from the applicable authorities and each institution’s approval.
Euro collection and customer-fund protection
The principal should receive euros into its documented collection arrangement. For the initial product, the Moroccan company should have no right to collect those funds into its ordinary operating account. Naming the bank-account holder is necessary, but “ownership of the euros” also requires identifying the customer’s claim and restrictions on using the funds. The proposed terms should give the sender a claim against the principal for the agreed service and any contractual refund.
French payment institutions must protect relevant customer funds under Article L. 522-17. The provision permits segregation and qualifying alternative protection arrangements; the proposed route should use an expressly documented safeguarding account. The statute’s conditions govern funds still held after the applicable next-business-day point. Customer money must not become ordinary working capital, and the bank documents must distinguish safeguarding from the principal’s own settlement liquidity. (Code monétaire et financier, art. L. 522-17, version effective 3 May 2025.)
The settlement agreement must identify when funds leave the principal’s safeguarding arrangement and who then owes performance. A wholesale payment to a Moroccan bank is not necessarily the beneficiary’s wallet credit. The principal should keep its sender-facing obligation until the agreed credit event occurs, even where local settlement precedes that event. Prefunding, bank charges and recovery from a failed payout partner should be allocated between the businesses without silently transferring those exposures to the sender.
The exchange quote and Moroccan bank settlement
The principal should own the retail quote presented to the sender. Before authorisation, the interface should state the euro amount collected, charges, rate, net dirham credit and quote expiry. The terms should identify whether the rate is fixed and what happens after expiry or rejection. The principal may procure conversion from a bank, but it should not direct a customer with a quotation dispute to an unnamed wholesale supplier. The French information rules apply to the European part of this one-ended transaction, subject to their statutory exclusions. (Code monétaire et financier, art. L. 314-2 IV.)
The proposed settlement path uses a Moroccan bank’s foreign-correspondent arrangements. Article 227 on the Office des Changes’ published correspondent-account page describes Moroccan banks’ currency accounts with foreign correspondents for their own transactions or customers’ transactions. Its permitted credits include receipts in the relevant currency. The contract should identify the receiving bank, its euro receipt, the conversion instruction and the resulting dirham transfer to the payout arrangement. This provision does not itself establish that an unnamed partner’s complete product is authorised. (Office des Changes, “Opérations sur les comptes ouverts auprès des correspondants à l’étranger”, art. 227.)
A foreign-correspondent convertible-dirham account offers another regulated bank arrangement. Article 226 specifies permitted credits and debits and prohibits resident payments to non-residents through crediting those accounts. The group should not net unrelated resident and non-resident obligations through a wallet ledger. It should also avoid assuming that every foreign payment institution qualifies for every correspondent-account category. The selected bank must document the account category and permissible entries for the actual participants. (Office des Changes, “Comptes en dirhams convertibles des correspondants étrangers”, art. 226.)
The Moroccan wallet institution should receive dirhams under this initial design, rather than independently conduct euro conversion. Law No. 103-12 makes payment institutions’ foreign-exchange operations subject to the applicable exchange rules. A bank conversion arrangement therefore avoids basing the pilot on an assumed dealer permission. Any later proposal for the Moroccan company or its outlets to exchange currency requires its own legal and approval assessment. (Law No. 103-12, art. 15.)
Sender onboarding and transfer acceptance
The principal should identify the sender before establishing the relationship, understand its purpose and monitor activity against the customer’s profile. It should establish who is funding the payment and investigate unexplained third-party funding or unusual patterns. Failed identification must trigger the applicable refusal or termination process, with suspicion reporting considered separately. Outsourcing data collection does not transfer the principal’s responsibility for deciding whether to accept the customer. ACPR’s published guidance excludes payment institutions mainly providing money remittance from AML third-party reliance and from acting as introducers. That restriction concerns tierce introduction, which differs from outsourcing tasks under the principal’s procedures. (Code monétaire et financier, arts. L. 561-5, L. 561-5-1, L. 561-6 and L. 561-8; ACPR, “Agent de PSP et PSP : qui fait quoi ?” and “En savoir plus sur les textes utiles en LCB-FT”, section on tierce introduction.)
The Moroccan provider has its own customer-diligence duties. It must identify the recipient, examine the relationship and apply risk-based monitoring. Law No. 43-05 retains the obliged institution’s ultimate responsibility where it relies on another party. Its suspicious-transaction provisions also cover attempted transactions. The operational procedure should keep French reporting to Tracfin separate from Moroccan reporting to the competent financial-intelligence authority, ANRF. ACPR’s guidance excludes Tracfin reporting obligations from permitted outsourcing. A foreign partner’s acceptance cannot automatically release a locally suspicious payment. (Law No. 43-05, arts. 4, 6, 8–9 and 14; ACPR and Tracfin, guidelines on reporting obligations, 23 April 2025; ACPR, “Agent de PSP et PSP : qui fait quoi ?”, question 3.)
The transfer message should carry the customer and transaction information required for screening, investigation and reconciliation. The two providers should test missing data, inconsistent names, duplicate orders, blocked accounts and unavailable wallet capacity before launch. Sanctions and asset-freeze controls should cover the parties before execution and distinguish a lawful hold from an ordinary refund. (ACPR, “Agent de PSP et PSP : qui fait quoi ?”, question 7.) The principal should apply strong customer authentication where required, with any exemption identified for the particular operation. Authentication by the funding bank and acceptance of the remittance order are distinct steps; the product team must allocate each authentication duty to its responsible provider. (Code monétaire et financier, art. L. 133-44.)
Personal data across the corridor
The group should map sender identification, recipient details, transaction records and support access before enabling cross-border processing. The map must identify controllers, processors, hosting locations and onward recipients. Morocco is absent from the European Commission’s adequacy list. Routine customer-data transfers therefore require an applicable transfer mechanism rather than an assumption that a commercial payout agreement is sufficient. (European Commission, “Adequacy decisions”; Regulation (EU) 2016/679, arts. 44–46.)
Standard contractual clauses require the correct parties, modules and completed annexes. The Commission’s guidance calls for an assessment of the destination’s laws and practices and supplementary protection where needed. Its guidance also limits the 2021 transfer clauses to importers whose relevant processing is outside the GDPR’s territorial application. If the Moroccan company itself offers services to people in the Union, that territorial question requires separate analysis before selecting those clauses. The principal-only customer model does not excuse a contradictory direct-to-sender business model. (Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/914, art. 1 and annex, clause 14; European Commission, standard contractual clauses questions and answers, questions 23–24 and 40.)
Moroccan data formalities must be assessed independently. Unless a specific legislative provision applies, Law No. 09-08 requires prior authorisation for specified processing, including national identity-card numbers. Other processing falls within the applicable declaration rules. Transfers out of Morocco must satisfy Articles 43–44; a European destination does not remove the need to examine the Moroccan export basis. The group should complete the required CNDP formalities and processor terms before putting customer-identification data into production. (Law No. 09-08, arts. 12, 23–25 and 43–44.)
Wallet credit and final cash withdrawal
The Moroccan provider should match the incoming instruction to a permitted recipient account and reconciled funding. Its ledger should distinguish an instruction received, a pending credit and an available balance. The recipient must receive the relevant transfer information, including the amount and exchange information required for incoming transfers. Crediting an internal ledger must not conceal an unresolved settlement shortfall. (BAM Circular No. 7/W/2016, arts. 7, 8 and 13.)
Moroccan wallet protection follows its own rules. Article 17 of Law No. 103-12 requires separate customer-fund accounting and a distinct account with a credit institution. The statutory protections address set-off, seizure and use in insolvency. Circular No. 7/W/2016 requires transfer to the segregated account no later than the working day following receipt, with an amount corresponding to the payment-account balances. Each user’s entitlement must remain identifiable. (Law No. 103-12, art. 17; BAM Circular No. 7/W/2016, art. 14.)
An available wallet credit and a later cash withdrawal are separate service events. The recipient may leave funds in the account or request withdrawal through an outlet authorised for that function. The payout provider should verify the withdrawal instruction, available balance and outlet liquidity before debiting the wallet. Its contract should assign responsibility for a debited account where the outlet fails to deliver cash. The rules prohibit an overdraft and require controls for lost or stolen payment credentials. (BAM Circular No. 7/W/2016, arts. 10 and 16; Circular No. 6/W/2016, arts. 15–18.)
Failed transfers, refunds and complaints
The sender contract must address the foreign payout risk expressly. For the proposed transfer between a French sender-side provider and a Moroccan recipient-side provider, Article L. 133-1 IV applies specified rules to the part performed in the Union. It excludes Article L. 133-13 I on execution timing and Article L. 133-22 on non-execution or defective execution liability. The principal should not advertise the entire corridor as subject to an unconditional European next-business-day rule. A separate European funding transaction can have different legal treatment. (Code monétaire et financier, art. L. 133-1 IV.)
The recommended contract should promise the stated Moroccan wallet credit or an identified refund remedy. It should define the credit deadline, permitted compliance holds, cancellation cut-off and proof of performance. It should allocate fees and exchange differences when a transfer fails, including after conversion. The principal should have sufficient own liquidity to honour its refund obligation while pursuing the payout partner. A bank settlement acknowledgment alone should not defeat a claim that the recipient’s wallet was never credited.
The recipient’s later cash-withdrawal failure should normally follow the Moroccan account contract after a valid, available wallet credit. A frozen or inaccessible credit requires closer treatment under the promised service and applicable restrictions. Neither provider should describe all pending payments as completed. The customer records should distinguish rejection, regulatory hold, credit, withdrawal and refund, with evidence supporting each status.
The principal must provide its French complaints procedure. Article L. 133-45 generally requires a response within 15 business days after the principal receives the complaint. The exceptional extension applies only where reasons beyond the principal’s control prevent a timely response. An interim reply must explain the delay and state the final-reply date. The sender must receive the final reply no later than 35 business days after the principal receives the complaint. For consumers, the principal must identify at least one competent out-of-court dispute-resolution body. Moroccan payment institutions must maintain complaints handling and participate in the mediation arrangements addressed by BAM’s rules. The businesses should exchange case records behind those customer-facing procedures, rather than send the complainant back and forth across the corridor. (Code monétaire et financier, art. L. 133-45; BAM Circular No. 6/W/2016, arts. 20–21.)
Evidence required before each launch stage
Before French advertising, the group should approve a written allocation of roles and a functional classification of the product. The file should contain the principal’s exact legal identity, current authorisation evidence and relevant French passport records. Any payment agent must have the required mandate and registration. Approved advertisements, app screens and terms must identify the same provider. The company’s board should prohibit independent French order acceptance until those conditions are met. (ACPR, “Agent prestataire de services de paiement”, “Passeporter mon activité” and payment-institution authorisation guidance.)
Before euro collection, the principal should sign the collection and safeguarding documents, sender terms and Moroccan settlement agreement. The implementation file should identify the retail quote owner, conversion bank, customer-fund movements and refund funding. Customer-diligence decisions, authentication and complaint ownership require named responsible teams. Production data access should remain disabled until the applicable transfer mechanism and Moroccan formalities are complete. (Code monétaire et financier, arts. L. 522-17 and L. 133-44; Law No. 09-08, arts. 12 and 43–44.)
Before Moroccan credits, the payout institution should produce its approval and conditions, the foreign-transfer agreement notification and bank instructions. Testing should demonstrate permitted wallet credits, rejection at limits, customer-fund segregation, reconciliation and completed cash withdrawal. Failed and duplicated instructions need tested recovery procedures. The launch decision should depend on evidence of those outcomes, not the app’s ability to display a transfer confirmation. (Law No. 103-12, arts. 17 and 34; BAM Circular No. 6/W/2016, art. 10; Circular No. 7/W/2016, arts. 10 and 14.)
The recommendation reverses if the proposed principal will not assume the sender contract or fund the agreed remedies. It also reverses if the Moroccan approval excludes required activity, the bank cannot implement lawful settlement, or customer data cannot move lawfully. In those circumstances, the group should retain only the Moroccan services it may perform. Expansion to an owned European principal should follow approval of the new entity and any additional service permissions, followed by customer-contract and fund migrations that preserve existing claims. (ACPR, payment-institution authorisation guidance; Law No. 103-12, art. 34.)