--- title: "A transfer receipt arrives as an attachment: verify before acting" canonical: https://www.billabex.com/en/blog/transfer-receipt-attachment-verification/ lang: en alternate: https://www.billabex.com/fr/blog/justificatif-virement-piece-jointe-verification.md updated: 2026-10-25 index: https://www.billabex.com/llms.txt --- # A transfer receipt arrives as an attachment: verify before acting A customer answers your reminder with a PDF labelled “transfer confirmation.” They ask you to close the invoice and stop the messages. The amount looks right, the document has a banking logo and the conversation comes from a familiar contact. Yet the receipt is absent from your accounting records. Acknowledge the information, then establish what it actually demonstrates. A scheduled instruction, an executed transfer and a credit located in your account are different states. The document may be valuable evidence for an investigation without supporting every requested decision on its own. For a French business dealing with European customers, the practical aim is to connect the customer's information to the bank movement and the correct invoice without turning uncertainty into an accusation. ## Acknowledge the document without announcing cash received A straightforward response can confirm receipt of the attachment and explain that allocation is being checked. This avoids ignoring the customer's reply or confirming funds the team has not identified. The internal status can show an investigation, its owner and next review date. Article 1353 of the French Civil Code distinguishes proving the obligation claimed from proving payment invoked to discharge it. It does not designate a file format that automatically settles every dispute. Evidence needs assessment within the case. [French Civil Code, Article 1353](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000032042341). Avoid both “a PDF is worthless” and “a receipt always closes the debt.” Operational verification should connect the document, bank movement and relevant invoices without claiming to determine a disputed legal-evidence question by itself. Also separate a temporary pause in reminders from closing the invoice. The former can give the team time to investigate; the latter records a different conclusion. ## Check the channel before examining the attachment A logo and familiar name do not establish authenticity. Cybermalveillance.gouv.fr explains that a known address can be impersonated and a suspicious attachment can lead to a fraudulent website or install malicious software. Where doubt exists, it recommends verification through another channel. [Cybermalveillance.gouv.fr, guidance updated 12 February 2026](https://www.cybermalveillance.gouv.fr/tous-nos-contenus/actualites/comment-reconnaitre-un-mail-de-phishing-ou-dhameconnage). If the message suddenly requests a bank login to “unlock” the receipt, do not follow that instruction. Access normal services through your known route and use your company's document-verification process. A security warning should not be bypassed to accelerate collections work. Doubt about the file does not mean the customer is committing fraud. Their account may be compromised, a document may have been transmitted incorrectly or a third party may be involved. Verify origin without circulating the suspicious attachment to everyone or accusing the contact before establishing facts. ## Read the status and reference, not only the amount Identify the reported execution date, amount, currency, recipient, destination account and useful banking reference. Separate the document's download date from the transaction date. A screenshot created today may concern an earlier payment or a future instruction. Provider formats differ. Wise, for example, says its confirmation PDF is available for completed transfers rather than those still in progress, and that its banking-partner reference helps a recipient bank locate the transaction. This describes that particular Wise document. It does not authenticate every attachment imitating its appearance. [Wise, downloading a transfer confirmation](https://wise.com/help/articles/2977946/how-do-i-download-a-transfer-confirmation). If the recipient is not your company or the account differs from the expected destination, clarify the discrepancy before allocation. The method for [checking changed bank details](https://www.billabex.com/en/blog/customer-new-iban-verification/) supports independent verification. A matching amount cannot correct a wrong recipient. A missing invoice reference is not proof of failure either. It indicates that the connection to your case needs additional evidence. ## Locate the credit in your own bank information Review authorised bank data and then the freshness of its accounting feed. A missing movement in a collections tool may reflect delayed synchronisation rather than absent bank funds. Conversely, the word “payment” on an attachment does not establish a credit to your account. Banque de France states that a standard electronic SEPA transfer has a maximum execution period of one business day from receipt of the instruction by the payer's bank. That receipt is the starting point, not the time of the email forwarding the document. Paper instructions can take two business days. [Banque de France, SEPA transfer timing](https://www.banque-france.fr/fr/a-votre-service/particuliers/mieux-connaitre-moyens-paiement/virement-sepa). Those reference points do not establish a promised arrival date without checking transaction type and status. If the search remains unsuccessful beyond the relevant period, request a usable reference and contact the bank through established channels. The article on [received cash with an invoice still open](https://www.billabex.com/en/blog/payment-received-invoice-still-open-tracing-unallocated-cash/) explains the difference between bank credit and reconciliation. Record what was actually checked. “No payment found” should identify the account and period searched, especially where several bank accounts receive customer funds. ## Do not count two documents as two payments Consider a simulation involving one open €7,200 invoice. The customer first sends a screenshot and then a PDF. Both show the same reference for a €2,700 transfer. Your bank confirms one €2,700 credit, which is allocated to that invoice. The remaining balance is €7,200 minus €2,700, or €4,500. Counting the two documents as separate receipts would incorrectly leave €1,800. The supposed €5,400 received would actually be two representations of the same movement. The customer has paid 37.5% of the invoice, not 75%. The reference and observed credit explain the difference. The customer then sends a €4,500 instruction scheduled for the following day. Until that second movement is established through the verification process, retain it as an announced payment, separate from the €2,700 received. If the €4,500 subsequently arrives and is allocated, total receipts become €7,200 and the balance becomes zero. Preserve the sequence without erasing the intermediate uncertainty. A renamed attachment should also remain connected to its original transaction. Treating a new filename as a new payment would reproduce the same error through a different route. ## Adapt follow-up to the verified result If full payment is found, update follow-up before the next reminder. If payment is partial, explain the recognised amount and remainder. If allocation is uncertain, request the necessary breakdown. Sending the original unchanged request would be inappropriate in all three situations. If the document claims an overpayment, do not refund based on that alone. The guide to [duplicate customer payments](https://www.billabex.com/en/blog/customer-double-payment-overpayment-refund/) distinguishes real excess cash from duplicate documents and bank returns already in progress. Keep useful evidence accessible only to people who need it. You need not request the customer's complete account history if a focused confirmation suffices. A precise request reduces their work and avoids circulating transactions unrelated to your invoice. ## Make the verification visible in the conversation Whoever takes over should distinguish what was announced, what arrived and what remains unverified. To examine that continuity, explore [Billabex follow-ups and conversations](https://www.billabex.com/en/product/follow-ups-conversations/). Test an attachment received before reconciliation and a second document carrying the same reference. Check visible context and the next action without assuming automatic banking authentication of attachments. ## Sources - French Civil Code, Article 1353. - Cybermalveillance.gouv.fr, recognising phishing emails, 12 February 2026. - Wise, How do I download a transfer confirmation?; Banque de France, Le virement SEPA. Sources accessed 7 September 2026.