Morocco's exchange instruction authorises a bank to send back a settlement that came from abroad, in four named cases: collections received in error or in duplicate, unpaid cheques drawn on abroad, pensions that have to go back to the issuing body, and transfers cancelled for non-use. It sets one year from receipt, and which returns that reaches is not settled.
Money that has arrived in Morocco and needs to go back is not left to whoever is holding it. The Office des Changes has an article for it, and the article names four cases, attaches a time limit and caps the amount. It also grants a permission where the mirror article, for money leaving Morocco, imposes a duty.
Key Takeaways
- The rule sits in the Instruction Générale des Opérations de Change 2026, issued by the Office des Changes.
- Banks are authorised to transfer back an arriving settlement in four listed cases.
- The article sets a one-year period from receipt, in the same sentence as a document condition written for the fourth case.
- Only the foreign currency amount originally collected may go back.
- The inbound article is a permission; the outbound one obliges the parties to start the procedure.
Which instrument the rule sits in, and which edition
The rule about returning an arriving payment is exchange regulation rather than payments regulation, so it belongs to the Office des Changes. The Office issues the Instruction Générale des Opérations de Change, a consolidated instruction reissued periodically.
Which edition matters. The current one is the 2026 edition, and there is no 2025 edition. The 2024 edition carries the same provisions under different numbering, so a reader checking that one will find them in a different place.
The records each permitted route leaves
Every permitted way of paying money to somebody in Morocco produces a document, and the instruction lists them and requires the bank to give the client a copy. What it does not do is say what part those records play in a return. For two of the four cases it does not say what evidences one at all.
A settlement, in the instruction's language, is any payment between a resident and a non-resident. The instruction lists the supporting records one to or from abroad generates. They differ by how the money arrived: a credit advice naming the exchange operation, a debit advice where an account was drawn on, a stub where the settlement went by post. Banks are required, for every settlement, to draw up the corresponding document and give the client a copy.
A worked case shows how little of this the instruction settles. Say a transfer from Australia is sent twice by mistake, and the second one lands. That is the first of the four cases, a collection received in duplicate. What the instruction fixes is the ceiling on any return, which is the foreign currency amount originally collected. What it does not say is what the bank must see before making one.
The four cases in which an arriving payment may go back
The instruction's article on cancelling settlements in favour of residents or coming from abroad opens by saying banks are authorised to proceed with the transfer, in whole or in part, of any such settlement, and then lists the settlements it covers. A collection, in the first of them, is money a bank takes in on a customer's behalf.
| Case | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Collections received in error or in duplicate | the instruction's own words, encaissements par erreur ou faisant double emploi |
| Cheques and bills drawn on abroad returned unpaid | a collection whose underlying instrument has since failed |
| Family allowances, pensions or annuities to be returned to the issuing body | money paid by an institution abroad that has to go back to it |
| Transfers from abroad to be given back following cancellation for non-use | money sent for a purpose that did not happen |
The third row is the one with its own procedure. The instruction provides that amounts of family allowances, pensions or annuities that have to be returned to the issuing body may be transferred by the bank holding the ordering party's account on production of the request for restitution issued by that body. The paperwork comes from the institution that wants its money back, not from the person who received it.
The three conditions on the return
The article does not stop at listing the cases. It constrains the transfer itself in three ways.
Which bank does it, and against what. Transfers on this basis must be made by the bank holding the account of the ordering party. That is whoever instructs the return, so the account is in Morocco rather than in Australia. The document required is any one justifying the repatriation and the non-use of the repatriated amount. That wording is written in the terms of the fourth case, cancellation for non-use. The third case is given a document of its own: family allowances, pensions and annuities to be returned to the issuing body may be transferred on production of the restitution request issued by that body. What evidences a return under the first two cases is not spelled out.
When. The same sentence sets a period not exceeding one year from the date the funds subject to the cancellation were received, so the clock runs from the arrival of the money rather than from the discovery of the problem. That period and the case-four document sit in one sentence, setting out how a transfer under the article is made. The third case is then given a sentence of its own, carrying a different document and no period. So the instruction does not settle whether the year reaches a return made under that separate route.
How much, and in what. The cancellation may be effected, up to the corresponding amount, by buying back foreign currency on the exchange market or by crediting the foreign currency account or convertible dirham account originally debited. The instruction then closes the question of size: the foreign currency to be transferred, or credited to those accounts, must relate only to the amount in foreign currency originally collected.
That is the substantive part. The return is anchored to the foreign currency figure that came in, not recalculated from whatever the dirham amount has since become.
The inbound article is a permission and the outbound one is not
The instruction treats the two directions as different problems, and the difference is visible in the verbs it uses.
For a settlement leaving Morocco or made to a non-resident, the instruction provides that the ordering parties and the banks are required to begin the cancellation procedure. The trigger is the operation behind the payment being cancelled in whole or in part, on notification by the client and as soon as the foreign bank confirms it. It then says what the cancellation must produce: repatriation and sale on the exchange market, without delay, of the foreign currency previously transferred, less any bank charges, or a debit of the foreign currency or convertible dirham account initially credited.
For a settlement arriving in Morocco, the instruction says banks are authorised to proceed. The French carries the contrast most plainly: the outbound provision reads sont tenus d'engager la procédure d'annulation, they are required to begin it, while the inbound one reads les banques sont autorisées à procéder, the banks are authorised to proceed.
The two provisions also differ in what starts them, and comparing them like for like shows the asymmetry is about more than a verb. The outbound duty states its own prerequisites: the operation behind the payment is cancelled, the client notifies the bank, the foreign bank confirms, and only then does the duty bite. The inbound article names four occasions and three conditions, and states no comparable sequence that has to be satisfied first. One provision says what a bank must do and when; the other says what it may do.
The instruction does not explain why, and this guide does not either. What the text does is create a lawful route for returning money that has arrived, and stop short of compelling anybody to use it.
What that means for a transfer sent from Australia
A return is a route the instruction provides rather than one it requires. Where it is used, it is bounded by the four named occasions, and by a period and a ceiling.
Three things follow for a sender.
The four cases are what the instruction authorises, and it does not say they are the only routes. This is a permission rather than a prohibition: it tells a bank what it may do without saying nothing else may be done. What it does establish is that four things each have a named basis: a collection received in error or in duplicate, an unpaid instrument behind a collection, a payment that has to go back to the institution that made it, and a transfer cancelled for non-use. A payment that merely turns out to be unwanted has none written for it. The first case is wider than it first reads, because money that arrived in error is a large part of what a sender would call a mistake.
The year runs from arrival. A problem discovered late is a problem discovered against a clock that started when the money landed, not when anyone noticed.
The amount that can come back is the amount that went in, in the currency it went in as. Anything the exchange rate has done in the meantime sits outside the instruction's own limit on the return.
Where to look next
- What a payment rail is made of - the separate layers a cross-border payment depends on, and what happens when a restriction removes one.
- Converting Australian dollars to Moroccan dirhams - the currency page, on the basket the dirham is managed against and the band it moves inside.
- Exchange rate margin - the glossary entry for the cost carried inside a rate rather than stated as a fee.
- Sending Australian dollars to Moroccan dirhams - the corridor page, with a note on how the dirham is managed and the live reference figures for the pair.
- How international transfers work - the pillar guide on routes, checks and where transfers are held up.
Sources
- Office des Changes, Royaume du Maroc, Instruction Générale des Opérations de Change 2026 - the current consolidated edition: the permitted ways a settlement may be made in favour of residents or from abroad, the supporting records and the bank's duty to give the client a copy, the cancellation article with its four cases, the one-year period, the restriction to the amount originally collected, and the mirror article obliging the parties to begin an outbound cancellation
- Office des Changes, Royaume du Maroc, Instruction Générale des Opérations de Change 2024 - the preceding consolidated edition, which is what the cross-edition claim rests on
- Office des Changes, Royaume du Maroc - the Office's own site and regulation index, and confirmation that it is the body administering exchange regulation rather than the central bank
General information about sending money to Morocco, and about what Moroccan exchange regulation provides on cancelling a settlement that has arrived from abroad. Not financial advice. Whether any particular payment fits one of the listed cases is a question for the institutions holding it. Reviewed by the Tradergy editorial team, September 2026.
Common questions
Which instrument governs a payment returned from Morocco?
The Instruction Générale des Opérations de Change, the general instruction on exchange operations issued by the Office des Changes. Returning an arriving payment is exchange regulation rather than payments regulation, which is why the rule sits with that body. The instruction is reissued as a consolidated edition; the current one is the 2026 edition, and there is no 2025.
In which cases may an arriving payment be sent back?
The instruction names four, and it authorises rather than confines: it says what a bank may do without saying nothing else may be done. Collections received in error or duplicating another. Collections representing the amount of cheques and bills drawn on abroad and returned unpaid. Transfers of family allowances, pensions or annuities that have to be returned to the body that issued them. And transfers coming from abroad that have to be given back, wholly or partly, to the parties concerned following cancellation for non-use.
Is there a deadline?
One sentence sets it, and reading that sentence closely matters. It provides that transfers under the article must be made by the bank holding the ordering party's account, meaning whoever instructs the return. The document required is any one justifying the repatriation and the non-use of the repatriated amount. The period is not more than one year from the date the funds were received. The document it describes is the fourth case's. The third case is given a separate sentence, with its own document and no stated period. So the year plainly governs a return made under the general sentence, and the instruction does not say whether it reaches one made under that separate route. Either way the clock runs from receipt of the money, not from discovery of the problem.
How much can be sent back?
Only what arrived, measured in the currency it arrived in. The instruction provides that the foreign currency to be transferred or credited to the accounts it names must relate only to the amount in foreign currency originally collected. The return leg is therefore anchored to the original foreign currency figure rather than recalculated from a dirham balance.
Is a Moroccan bank obliged to return an arriving payment?
The instruction does not put it that way. On the inbound side it says banks are authorised to proceed with the transfers, which is a permission. On the outbound side, for a payment leaving Morocco or made to a non-resident, the same instruction says the ordering parties and the banks are required to begin the cancellation procedure where the operation behind it is cancelled. One article grants a power and the other imposes an obligation.