A man had 75,000 hryvnias stolen from his card, while PrivatBank demands repayment of a loan – here's the court's decision.

PrivatBank demands that a man settle a loan debt totaling 62,751 hryvnias. However, he refuses to do so, claiming he did not utilize the loan funds. This is stated in the decision of the Bolhrad District Court of the Odesa region, published on February 11, 2025.

The man has voluntarily failed to fulfill his obligations under the loan agreement, which is why PrivatBank is seeking to recover the debt of 62,751 hryvnias from him. Nevertheless, he asserts that he never received a loan. The citizen indeed had an account at a PrivatBank branch because he received his salary on a card, but bank employees imposed a credit card on him. The client did not use any loan funds. This is confirmed by the attachment to the lawsuit titled "Debt Calculation."

On July 19, 2023, the bank increased the limit to 75,000 hryvnias without the man's request or consent, and by July 22, 2023, these funds were transferred by the bank to a store account located in Kyiv. While waiting for his salary, he checked the Privat-24 app and saw a notification about funds being deducted from his credit card, prompting him to contact the bank immediately since he had not utilized those funds. The citizen also reported the matter to the police, filing a complaint regarding a criminal offense under Article 190 Part 3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

What did the court decide?

The court denied PrivatBank's request to grant the claim. The man did not use the loan funds.

"The plaintiff has not proven that the defendant utilized the loan funds under the circumstances outlined in the claim; therefore, the claims have not been substantiated by appropriate, admissible, and sufficient evidence. The court has established that the loan funds were used in Kyiv, while the defendant resides and works in Bolhrad and was in Bolhrad at the time the funds were withdrawn, as he immediately contacted the bank branch in Bolhrad, a fact not denied by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the plaintiff does not refute the defendant's assertion that he had not even activated the card at the time of the fraudulent actions involving the loan funds, nor does he dispute the fact that the banking service was imposed through coercion to obtain a credit card alongside the salary account. The defendant denies any intention to acquire a credit card, stating that he was told he could not open a salary account without obtaining a credit card. The defendant's good faith is supported by the fact that, firstly, he did not activate the credit card; secondly, upon noticing the activity on the credit account, he immediately contacted the bank and the police with relevant complaints; and thirdly, the loan funds were allegedly spent in Kyiv by fraudsters, thus there is no conclusive and indisputable evidence that the defendant himself spent the loan funds, for which the debt recovery is the subject of this claim. In the absence of proven circumstances that incontrovertibly indicate that the user contributed to the loss or illegal use of the PIN code or other information allowing for payment operations to be initiated, one must assume the absence of guilt on the part of the user regarding the transfer or receipt of disputed funds," emphasized the court.