Extract
[...] This risk offinancial exclusion deserves a more systematic critical analysis, particularly from the perspective of fundamental rights, of equal access to payment means. Furthermore, the generalization of electronic money raises questions of monetary sovereignty, data control, and protection of personal data - issues that the text does not address, but which recur in the doctrinal debate. DOC 3. - CH. COM - 6 JUNE 2001 - N°99-18296 - QUALIFICATION OF "GIFT CHEQUES" - PRE- DSP 1 REGIME : The determination of the scope of monopoly of banking, the cornerstone of the law of 24 January 1984, has long raised significant uncertainties. [...]
[...] Always cited as a reference in disputes related to check rejections. SCOPE: It protects the security of the payment system, in avoiding a client from contesting their banking ban simply by denying receipt of the letter. It clarifies a previous jurisprudence sometimes hesitant. The solution fits into the logic of the obligation to inform: the bank must prove an proactive approach, but not the result of the communication. DOCTRINE - MARIE-AGNÈS CAMPROUX-DUFFRÈNE : The prior obligation to inform is a a legal obligation of prudence, intended to avoid disproportionate sanctions for the account holder. [...]
[...] The analysis proposed by Mr. Roussille highlights a central fact : the decline of the use of cash is not the consequence of a recent technological progress, but the continuation of a public policy engaged since 1940 aiming to reduce the anonymity of transactions. This policy, initially turned towards the the fight against the black market, a progressively integrated fiscal objectives then of the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism, leading to increasingly strict regulation. The combination between this legal tradition and the technological growth of electronic payments makes a significant reduction in cash plausible in the medium term. [...]
[...] 112-3 breaks down the limiting amounts according to the situation of the debtor (domicile fiscal, professional or non-professional use) and according to whether the payment is in cash or in electronic money : - For a debtor domiciled for tax purposes in France or acting for the needs of a professional activity: ?1,000 for a cash payment, ?3,000 for an electronic money payment. - For a debtor not domiciled for tax purposes in France, not acting for a professional activity, the ceilings are higher: ?10,000 (or ?15,000, depending on the beneficiary of the debt) for cash or electronic money, depending on whether it is a beneficiary subject to the obligations of combating money laundering (art. L. 561-2 CMF) or not. The text also provides for exclusions : The prohibition does not apply, in particular, to payments between natural persons not acting for professional needs, to persons unable to issue a check or have a bank account, nor to state expenses or public persons expenses. [...]
[...] ROUSSILLE - "THE END OF CASH PAYMENT? A REVIEW OF THE ORIGINS OF A DISGRACE", RDBF N°5 - SEPT. OCT - ALERT 55 : The article by M. Roussille offers a particularly enlightening historical and legal analysis of a contemporary phenomenon : the progressive reduction of the use of cash in favor of dematerialized payment means, particularly electronic money and mobile phone-based payments. While the media often present this transition as a recent movement, the author demonstrates that the marginalization of cash actually has its roots in an old state policy, marked by a constant desire for traceability and the fight against underground economy. [...]
