A Kyiv resident has demanded that PrivatBank annul loan agreements totaling 123,833 UAH, which he did not sign, according to a court ruling.

A man noticed fraudulent activities involving his bank card. He requested help from PrivatBank to prevent this, but to no avail. The citizen demands that credit agreements totaling 123,833 hryvnias be declared invalid. This was stated in the decision of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv, published on December 18, 2024.

On August 31, 2023, the man noticed that fraudulent actions were being carried out regarding his bank card at JSC CB "PrivatBank", as he received messages asking him to confirm transactions he did not make. To prevent the loss of funds, he blocked his card in "Privat-24" due to suspicions of third-party access to his financial phone number. Based on the client's request regarding this matter, the bank removed the "financial" status from the client's phone number and blocked the client's account in the "Privat-24" system to avoid possible fraudulent operations with the client's accounts. However, contrary to the terms of the agreement, the bank did not remove the financial status from the client’s number and did not block the account in the "Privat-24" system. The citizen demands that credit agreements for amounts of 50,564 hryvnias and 73,269 hryvnias be declared invalid.

“On August 31, 2023, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a credit agreement for 'Installment Payment' in the amount of 53,499 hryvnias, which consists of an application for the provision of credit under the 'Installment Payment' scheme, a consumer credit passport for 'Installment Payment' from JSC CB 'PrivatBank', and a payment schedule for the consumer credit. The agreement from August 31, 2023, for the amount of 53,499 hryvnias was signed using an OTP password, the use of which was agreed upon by the parties in the application for joining the terms and conditions of banking services dated February 3, 2021. No credit agreement in the amount of 73,269 hryvnias was concluded between the parties on August 31, 2023; only the specified amount was withdrawn from the plaintiff's credit card, the lending conditions of which were agreed upon in the agreement dated February 3, 2021,” the bank stated.

What did the court decide?

The court denied the man's claim. The bank proved that the client’s actions or inactions contributed to the loss and unlawful use of personal information that allowed the initiation of payment operations, in particular, increasing the credit limit and withdrawing credit funds.

“The defendant provided a statement agreeing to the terms and conditions of banking services, which was signed by both parties, and paragraph 3 of which contains an agreement on the use of a simple electronic signature. The OTP password was sent to the plaintiff’s financial phone number and confirmed by him upon conclusion of the agreement. Thus, the bank adequately proved that the plaintiff’s actions or inactions contributed to the loss and unlawful use of personal information, which enables initiating payment operations, specifically increasing the credit limit and withdrawing credit funds. Based on the fully and thoroughly established circumstances examined during the court session, evaluating their relevance, admissibility, truthfulness, as well as their sufficiency and mutual connection in their entirety, and establishing the legal relationships arising from the established circumstances and the applicable legal norms to these relationships, the court concluded to deny the claims,” the court emphasized.