A Kyiv resident lost 99,018 hryvnias, while PrivatBank demands repayment of a debt amounting to 87,692 hryvnias. Here’s the court’s ruling on the matter.

A woman lost funds totaling 99,018 hryvnias. She requested the return of these funds, but PrivatBank demands repayment of a debt under a loan agreement amounting to 87,692 hryvnias. This is stated in the decision of the Dnipro District Court of Kyiv, published on January 6, 2025.

The woman approached JSC CB "PrivatBank" to obtain banking services, for which she signed an application to join the terms and conditions of banking services dated June 3, 2020. The bank fulfilled its obligations under the contract in full, namely issued a credit card and provided credit funds in the form of an established credit limit. Due to a breach of obligations under the loan agreement, as of June 23, 2024, she has a debt of 87,692 hryvnias.

On September 12, 2024, the woman submitted a response requesting a complete rejection of the claim. On March 9, 2023, her phone received five messages from JSC CB "PrivatBank" via the "Privat-24" application confirming the withdrawal of funds totaling 27,460 hryvnias from her main (salary) card and 71,557 hryvnias from her credit card. She was unable to immediately contact the bank's customer support at number 3700. In correspondence with the bank through a chatbot, it became known that the funds from her cards (main and credit) totaling 99,018 hryvnias were transferred (withdrawn) to a service in Kazakhstan. On April 21, 2023, the client sent a request to the bank demanding an internal investigation, and on May 19, 2023, she submitted a request notifying the bank of her intention to contact the cyber police, asking for the cancellation of accrued interest, penalties, and to return the funds withdrawn from her cards. These requests received formal responses that did not contain any information regarding the results of the internal investigation. Furthermore, the citizen refers to the unfounded nature of the accrued debt due to overdue interest, as she is the wife of a serviceman who voluntarily joined the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

What did the court decide?

The court denied the claim. The bank does not deny that the payments were not authorized by the client; it merely asserts that authorization was conducted with the input of all card details. According to the payment system rules, the bank has no right to refuse a withdrawal based on authorization and a request from the payment system. However, the financial institution did not provide evidence of a thorough internal investigation to establish the circumstances of the funds being withdrawn from the client's card.

"The court concludes that the claim of JSC CB 'PrivatBank' against the citizen for the recovery of debt cannot be satisfied, as it is the bank's responsibility to prove that the user, through their actions or inaction, contributed to the loss or illegal use of their personal identification number or other information that allows for the initiation of payment transactions on their behalf. In the absence of proof of this circumstance, it should be assumed that the user is not at fault for the transfer or receipt of the disputed funds, considering that the defendant promptly notified the plaintiff and law enforcement of the unjustified withdrawal of funds," the court emphasized.