--- title: "Bank fees reduce an incoming transfer: explaining the remaining balance" canonical: https://www.billabex.com/en/blog/bank-fees-transfer-remaining-balance/ lang: en alternate: https://www.billabex.com/fr/blog/frais-bancaires-virement-solde-restant.md updated: 2026-10-09 index: https://www.billabex.com/llms.txt --- # Bank fees reduce an incoming transfer: explaining the remaining balance Your customer reports paying €10,000, but your bank balance increases by only €9,975. Before requesting the missing €25, establish who charged it, for which service and to whom. The difference between the invoice and net available cash does not always represent customer debt. This check is particularly useful for businesses receiving cross-border payments. The payment route, banking terms and commercial agreement answer different questions. Bringing them together allows the team to make a justified request, correct the reconciliation or investigate a bank deduction according to the evidence, rather than treating every net receipt as a partial payment. ## Reconstruct three separate amounts Keep the amount requested from the customer, the amount of the incoming payment transaction and the fees borne by your business separate. Record the currency for each. A statement line or cash report may show only the net result even though the bank's detailed information distinguishes the transaction from the fee. Request that detail before concluding that the customer underpaid. It should identify who charged the fee, its reference and date, and its relationship to the transfer. A generic “fees” label does not establish whether the customer reduced the instruction, an intermediary deducted a charge or your bank billed its own service. The investigation begins like [tracing received but unallocated cash](https://www.billabex.com/en/blog/payment-received-invoice-still-open-tracing-unallocated-cash/): find the relevant banking information and connect it to the correct case. The additional step is to distinguish settlement of the receivable from the cost of the banking service. ## Identify the payment route before applying a rule The European Payments Council describes SEPA Credit Transfer as carrying the full original amount, with each user charged only by their own payment service provider. A SEPA payment should therefore not immediately be treated as an international transfer whose intermediaries can freely reduce the amount along the way. [EPC description of SEPA Credit Transfer](https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/what-we-do/sepa-credit-transfer). For transactions within its scope, Article L133-11 of France's Monetary and Financial Code requires transfer of the full amount. It nevertheless allows a payee to agree that their own provider deducts its fees before crediting, with the total transaction and fees identified separately. That presentation explains why a net credit can require closer examination. [Monetary and Financial Code, Article L133-11](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000035430428). Legal scope depends on the providers involved and the currency, among other conditions. Article L133-1 excludes L133-11 for certain transactions. Check those facts before applying the rule to a transfer involving a provider outside the European Economic Area or a different currency. SEPA and the EEA are distinct geographical frameworks. [Scope of French payment rules](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006072026/LEGISCTA000006153962/). ## The same net cash can imply different invoice balances Consider two entirely simulated situations, in euros, with no currency conversion. In both, the invoice is €10,000. No credit note or agreed discount changes the price. In the first situation, bank detail confirms a €10,000 transaction and a €25 receiving fee owed by your business to its bank. No commercial term makes that fee rechargeable to the customer. Net cash increases by €9,975, but the invoice payment is €10,000. Reconciliation must distinguish the bank charge from the payment. Asking for another €25 against the invoice would create a false shortfall. In the second situation, the customer actually instructed €9,975, without an agreed price reduction and without fees explaining a larger underlying transaction. The payment received is €9,975 and the invoice balance is €25. The same increase in bank cash leads to a different conclusion because the underlying transaction differs. | Simulated situation | Incoming transaction | Identified own bank fee | Net cash | Invoice balance | | ------------------------------------- | -------------------: | ----------------------: | -------: | --------------: | | Full payment with own receiving fee | €10,000 | €25 | €9,975 | €0 | | Reduced instruction without agreement | €9,975 | €0 | €9,975 | €25 | These are illustrative amounts, not observed bank tariffs. They demonstrate why subtracting net cash from an invoice is insufficient. Accounting validates the allocation and evidence; the collection team then uses the corrected receivable balance. Ask whether an existing import has already recorded the fee separately. Entering it again while correcting the customer balance would duplicate the charge. The reconciliation should explain both the bank movement and the customer account, using the bank's actual presentation rather than assuming every statement has the same structure. ## Understand OUR, SHA and BEN without overinterpreting them For international transfers outside SEPA, Banque de France describes three charging arrangements: OUR, SHA and BEN. It also notes that the beneficiary's bank may charge receiving fees even where the sender covers sending charges. The terms applicable to the specific transaction need checking. [Banque de France on international transfers](https://www.banque-france.fr/fr/a-votre-service/particuliers/mieux-connaitre-moyens-paiement/virement-international). One of these labels helps frame a question to the bank. It does not replace the commercial agreement with the customer. A banking instruction and an obligation between trading companies are not interchangeable. Retain the known fee instruction and the relevant contract provision as separate pieces of information. If the transfer passed through an intermediary, request a trace of the amount using the available references and figures. Until the deduction's origin is established, avoid stating that the customer deliberately subtracted the fee. Equally, a customer email saying “bank charges” does not prove that the invoice was fully settled under the applicable agreement. Keep the investigation owner clear. The customer may need to contact its sending bank while your finance team checks the receiving statement. Both actions can be necessary, but duplicating requests without a shared reference makes it harder to recognise when the explanation finally arrives. ## Ask a question that resolves the uncertainty An initial request might say: “We are reconciling your payment for invoice F204. Our bank detail shows a net amount of €9,975 against the €10,000 invoice. Could you confirm the amount of the executed instruction and the fee allocation shown by your bank? We are also checking any charges from our own provider.” This presents the difference without prematurely allocating responsibility. It asks for information that separates the possible explanations. If you already hold evidence establishing your own bank fee, correct the case first; there is no need to ask the customer to investigate a question already answered. Once the cause is known, the next communication can be precise. Confirm that payment covers the invoice, explain an established remaining balance and its basis, or describe the bank investigation still needed. The approach to [small customer balances](https://www.billabex.com/en/blog/small-customer-balances-handling-cost/) then helps determine proportionate effort if an amount is actually still due. ## Prevent the same confusion on future receipts If twenty transfers each incur €25 of your own fees, the simulated bank cost totals €500. Make it visible when discussing banking services or future terms. Classifying it as twenty customer payment failures distorts the relationship record and can trigger twenty unnecessary reminders. Check whether a transfer covers several documents too. Fees should not be assigned arbitrarily to the last invoice in a batch. The method for [one payment covering several invoices](https://www.billabex.com/en/blog/one-payment-multiple-invoices/) helps retain explainable allocation before dealing with the banking cost separately. For future contracts, clarify currency, accepted payment route and responsibility for fees with the appropriate decision-makers. Any change of terms needs agreement; an internal preference cannot simply be added retrospectively to the amount demanded. [Billabex follow-up conversations](https://www.billabex.com/en/product/follow-ups-conversations/) provide a place to follow the customer's answer and the next action. The decision still depends on evidence of the payment amount and the cause of the difference. A reliable reminder requires an explained balance, even when only a few euros separate the announced transfer from available cash. ## Sources - European Payments Council, SEPA Credit Transfer characteristics, accessed 7 September 2026. - French Monetary and Financial Code, Articles L133-11 and L133-1, accessed 7 September 2026. - Banque de France, international non-SEPA transfers, accessed 7 September 2026.