Bank statement import fails for MT940 files in cash management integration with external banking API

ERP Microsoft Dynamics 365
, , , , , , , ,
1

We’re experiencing consistent failures importing MT940 bank statement files into D365 Cash Management (10.0.41). The import process completes without errors in the data management workspace, but the bank transactions don’t appear in the reconciliation workspace.

I’ve verified the MT940 file structure matches our bank’s specification, and the same files imported successfully in our previous version (10.0.38). The issue seems related to how certain MT940 tags are being parsed, particularly the :61: transaction detail lines and :86: supplementary details.

We’re using Power Automate to pre-process files before import, converting from ISO-8859-1 to UTF-8 encoding. The data entity used is BankStatementDocumentEntity. Has anyone encountered similar MT940 parsing issues after upgrading to 10.0.41?

2

Thanks for the pointer. I checked our files and yes, we do have multi-line :86: fields. Could you share how you consolidated them in Power Automate? Did you use a custom expression or a specific action?

3

Also verify your MT940 tag mapping configuration in Cash and bank management parameters. After 10.0.40, Microsoft added stricter validation for mandatory tags. If your bank’s MT940 variant uses optional tags differently (like :60F: vs :60M: for opening balance), the import might silently fail validation. Check the data management execution log for validation warnings that don’t surface as errors in the UI.

4

For the Power Automate consolidation, we used a Compose action with a replace expression to convert CRLF within :86: blocks to spaces, then ensured each transaction block ends with a proper line break. The key is identifying the :86: start and the next tag (usually :61: for the next transaction) as boundaries. It’s a bit tricky with regex, but it solved our parsing issues completely.

5

Found the validation warnings in the execution log - you were right! Several transactions failed validation due to date format in the :61: tag. Our bank uses YYMMDD format but D365 expects YYYYMMDD in 10.0.41+.

6

I faced something similar last month. Check if your MT940 file has multi-line :86: fields. D365 10.0.40+ changed how it handles continuation lines in supplementary details. If your bank uses multiple :86: lines for a single transaction, the parser might be splitting them incorrectly. We had to adjust our Power Automate flow to consolidate multi-line :86: fields into single lines before import.