Identity Theft and Consumer Credit: Bank Dismissed for Failure to Verify – CA Paris, Pole 4 – Ch. 9-A, 15 January 2026, No. 24/19836

The development of remote credit has considerably simplified access to financing for consumers. However, this dematerialisation also opens the door to a growing scourge: identity theft. In a ruling dated 15 January 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal forcefully reminds that the convenience offered by remote contract conclusion does not exempt the lender from its basic verification obligations. Furthermore, it sanctions the abusive resistance of a debt assignee that persisted in claiming repayment of a loan that was manifestly taken out by a third-party fraudster.

CA Paris, Pôle 4 – Ch. 9-A, 15 janvier 2026, n° 24/19836 

The facts: a phantom loan and a default judgment

On 3 December 2019, a personal loan of 14,500 euros was taken out with AXA Banque Financement in the name of Mr [W], a young man born in 1994. This loan was contracted entirely remotely, without the lender ever physically meeting the supposed borrower. Moreover, the funds were not paid into Mr [W]’s account, but transferred to a car dealership.

When the instalments remained unpaid, AXA Banque Financement had Mr [W] summoned before the consumer protection judge of Charenton-le-Pont in September 2020. The summons was served at an address Mr [W] had never occupied, pursuant to Article 659 of the Code of Civil Procedure — that is, without personal service. Mr [W], who was entirely unaware of these proceedings, was ordered by default on 22 December 2020 to pay the sum of 13,961.19 euros, with interest at the contractual rate of 3.80%.

The debt was subsequently assigned on 27 June 2022 to the company 1640 Investment 5, a securitisation fund, which pursued enforcement measures. It was only at this point that Mr [W] truly became aware of the extent of the fraud of which he was a victim: attachment of his bank account, order for seizure and sale… The net was closing around someone who had never signed any credit agreement with AXA Banque.

💡 Understanding the context -- When a judgment is rendered by default (without the defendant appearing or being represented), the ordinary remedy is opposition. However, when the time limit for opposition has expired, it is necessary to obtain a relief from forfeiture in order to bring an appeal. This is precisely what Mr [W] obtained by order of 19 November 2024, demonstrating that he had never been aware of the initial judgment.

Different identity cards
The most striking element lies in the comparison of identity documents. The card provided to the bank at the time of the loan application and the one produced by Mr [W] are two distinct documents: the identification numbers do not match, nor do the dates of issue and expiry, or the issuing prefectures. The copy held by the bank is, moreover, a nearly illegible photocopy on which the photograph shows a different hairstyle from that of Mr [W]. The Court notes unambiguously that this is not the same young man.
Signatures with nothing in common
The Court then conducts a graphological examination, admittedly non-expert, but nonetheless telling. The signature appended to the pages of the loan agreement is described as "almost childlike, consisting of the initial J," whereas Mr [W]'s actual signature is "markedly more elaborate and graphically represents a sort of drawing." The Court reinforces this observation by noting that this same authentic signature appears on a petition filed by Mr [W] on 28 June 2024 with the judge responsible for supervising the commercial register.
An IBAN unknown to the victim
The bank account designated for the direct debit of the loan instalments does not correspond to any of Mr [W]'s accounts. His IBAN at Crédit Mutuel differs from the number appearing on the direct debit mandate, and the account presented by the bank as belonging to the borrower is held at Banque Postale -- an institution with which Mr [W] manifestly has no connection.
An address never occupied
The contract mentions an address in Charenton-le-Pont that Mr [W] never lived at. He demonstrates, with supporting documents -- tax notices, payslips, rent receipts -- that he was successively domiciled in Strasbourg, in Val-de-Marne, and then in Seine-Saint-Denis, but never at the address stated on the contract. The bailiff's notices served at this address were all served pursuant to Article 659 of the CPC, that is, without any addressee being found at the premises.
Complaints predating the fraud
A particularly decisive element: Mr [W] filed an initial complaint for identity theft as early as 9 October 2019, nearly two months before the disputed loan was taken out on 3 December 2019. He explains that his personal documents -- identity card, payslips, bank details -- were stolen during apartment viewings. Three supplementary complaints followed in 2021, 2023 and 2024 as demands for payment continued.
The Court's key reasoning: the impersonator did not use Mr [W]'s actual identity card but fabricated a forged identity card bearing his personal details with a different photograph. The fraud was "sufficiently well constructed to deceive the bank," but basic checks -- careful examination of the identity document, request for proof of address and income -- should have enabled its detection.
The enhanced verification obligation in remote credit
The Court devotes an essential passage to the specificity of credit concluded remotely. It notes that the lender never met the borrower in person at any point, which is admittedly legally permitted, but "requires, particularly given the amounts involved, a more thorough verification of identity and creditworthiness and a secure signature process."
However, in the present case, no documents relating to the borrower's address or creditworthiness had been included in the credit file. The bank relied solely on a nearly illegible copy of an identity card and unverified self-declared information. For a personal loan of 14,500 euros, such carelessness raises serious questions.
💡 What this means in practice -- While the law permits the conclusion of consumer credit agreements entirely remotely, it does not exempt the lender from its duty of vigilance. Article L. 312-16 of the Consumer Code requires verification of the borrower's creditworthiness. More broadly, know-your-customer (KYC) obligations under anti-money laundering regulations require effective identity verification, particularly enhanced in the absence of a face-to-face meeting. The ruling, without explicitly relying on this regulatory basis, draws the evidentiary consequences: it is for the creditor to prove the reality of the commitment, and incomplete or inconsistent documents cannot suffice.

The Court notes that two courts had already ruled in Mr [W]'s favour before this judgment: the First President of the Court of Appeal on 19 November 2024 (relief from forfeiture) and the enforcement judge on 13 June 2025. Despite these consistent signals, the company maintained its payment claim. This obstinacy constitutes the abusive resistance that was sanctioned.
Mr [W] was also awarded 3,000 euros under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the company was ordered to pay costs of both first instance and appeal proceedings.
⚖️ The Court's ruling -- The Court reverses the judgment of 22 December 2020 (except insofar as it had rejected the bank's Article 700 claim). It dismisses all payment claims by the company 1640 Investment 5 against Mr [W]. It orders the company to pay 2,000 euros in damages and 3,000 euros under Article 700 of the CPC, in addition to costs of first instance and appeal.

First, it illustrates the evidentiary methodology expected of an identity theft victim. Mr [W] compiled a complete and coherent file: successive criminal complaints, the first of which predated the fraud, authentic identity documents enabling comparison, proof of address contradicting the fraudulent address, and bank statements excluding receipt of the funds. It is this accumulation of converging evidence that carries the Court's conviction.
Second, the decision highlights the deficiencies of credit institutions in the remote application process. Acceptance of a nearly illegible copy of an identity card, the absence of any proof of address or income, and the absence of a secure signature process for a loan of 14,500 euros all constitute failures that made the impersonation possible.
Finally, the ruling sends a message to debt assignees: purchasing a debt portfolio does not exempt from a critical examination of files, particularly when the alleged debtor formally disputes having entered into the contract and produces serious evidence in support of their challenge. Blindly pursuing recovery under such circumstances exposes the assignee to a finding of abusive resistance.


"These elements demonstrate that Mr [W], having had his identity papers stolen, was the subject, thanks to the information they contained, of an identity theft sufficiently well constructed to deceive the bank."

CA Paris, Pôle 4 – Ch. 9-A, 15 janvier 2026, n° 24/19836


REFERENCES
Decision: CA Paris, Division 4 - Chamber 9-A, 15 January 2026, No. RG 24/19836
First instance: Consumer Protection Judge of Charenton-le-Pont, 22 December 2020, RG n° 11-20-000420
Relevant provisions: Art. 9 CPC – Art. 1353 C. civ. – Art. 659 CPC – Art. 700 CPC