Bank’s Liability for Fraction Acts: The decision of the Court of Appeal in the Customer Case from Khmelnytskyi

A woman from the Khmelnytsky region lost 41,000 hryvnias due to a fraudulent scheme and lost her case in court. The Court of Appeal ruled that the responsibility for this situation lies with the plaintiff itself, not with a banking institution.

According to a forensic newspaper, a woman appealed to the court to cancel a loan agreement and a debt of UAH 41,391, claiming that her funds had been written off illegally.

In the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal, it was revealed that on October 8, 2023, a transfer of 40,955 UAH in credit funds was made from her card account. The woman quickly blocked the card and reported the fraud to law enforcement agencies.

At the hearing of the case, the plaintiff claimed that she had not signed any credit agreement, had not received cash, and had not transferred any funds. She also assured that she did not provide her mobile phone, passwords, or access to the Privat24 payment app to third parties. Suddenly, it demanded the invalidation of the contract and the cancellation of debt, including interest.

However, the Dunaevtsi District Court rejected its claim. The woman appealed, but the Court of Appeal agreed with the decision of the lower instance. The judges noted that the plaintiffs’ actions resulted in unauthorized debiting of funds, and there were no grounds for canceling the debt or declaring the contract invalid.

According to the bank, during an official audit, it was discovered that the client’s account had been accessed from a new device. The correct PIN code was used for authorization, and the confirmation was obtained through a call from the bank. The money was written off through the manual entry of the card details, including the numbers, expiration dates, and CVV code.

From the bank’s contact center, it was confirmed that the plaintiff had logged in from the new device without changing their login or password. Later, during the investigation, the woman acknowledged that during a telephone conversation, she had provided information, believing she was protecting her funds.

The resolution emphasized that “the bank proved in court that it was the plaintiff who had disclosed confidential data that allowed the fraudsters to make a payment on her behalf.”

As a result, the court left the district court’s decision unchanged, rejecting the woman’s appeal.

The text of the decision can be found in the Unified State Register of Judgments.