Answer
Usually no. Virtual accounts are remittance or ledger identifiers on a physical master account. They improve allocation and collections visibility; they do not replace the legal bank account (and often the local regulatory footprint) each subsidiary may still need for payments, payroll, tax, or licence conditions.
Why
- Legal balance sits on the master — cash received on a VA still belongs, at the bank, to the master account holder. Entity books get an allocation entry; that is not the same as a licensed deposit account in the subsidiary’s name.
- Payments and local obligations — many corridors still require entity-level accounts for outbound payments, tax, or social charges even when inbound collections use VAs. A payment factory can centralize release without deleting every local account.
- Not pooling — VAs do not move cash to a header the way cash pooling does, and they are not notional pooling. Do not retire concentration or entity accounts because a VA catalogue looks complete.
- Where “yes, partially” appears — groups sometimes retire redundant collection-only accounts after VAs plus ROBO (where allowed) prove allocation quality. That is selective rationalization under liquidity management, not a blanket replacement.
If the goal is fewer accounts, define which accounts are collection-only versus payment/regulatory must-keeps, then map VAs onto the collection set. Full mechanics: virtual accounts.
Next
Structure: virtual accounts. Inbound design: ROBO. Concentration still separate: cash pooling. Umbrella: liquidity management.