fact-ua.com

A client refuses to repay a loan debt of 60,620 UAH to PrivatBank. What was the court's decision?

Суд вынес решение по делу клиента, который отказался вернуть ПриватБанку долг в 60 620 гривен.

PrivatBank has charged a man with a debt of 60,620 hryvnias on his loan. However, he refuses to pay it back, claiming that funds from his account were stolen. This was stated in a decision by the Berezansky District Court of Mykolaiv region, published on January 20, 2025.

On April 26, 2023, the man received a loan in the form of an established credit limit on his card account based on an application form for joining the terms and conditions of banking services, dated March 4, 2011. Due to his failure to meet his obligations under the mentioned loan agreement, his debt as of March 13, 2023, amounted to 60,620 hryvnias, which included: loan debt – 49,229 hryvnias, and interest on the loan – 11,390 hryvnias.

"The bank conducted an investigation, during which it was established that the client reported selling goods on OLX, received a phishing link, and, believing he was entering his information on the Privat-24 website, he entered confidential card details and password. As a result, funds were transferred via Privat-24 through virtual terminal W 194348 (owned by JOINT-STOCK COMPANY "SENSE BANK"). No changes were made to the login and password in Privat-24, and no SMS messages to the client's number were found in the archive. Phone connections were not interrupted, and password compromises occurred from different devices: ZTE 8010|ZTE, REDMI 5A GLOBAL|XIAOMI. An analysis of the transactions conducted through the "PanLike" admin panel revealed that all transactions were conducted with manual entry of the card number (posentrey mode-12), entry of the CVV code (resp code-1), and the code for internet payments - 3-D Secure (pos condition -82), with NFC pay-N. The funds withdrawn from his card were unauthorized and resulted from the client's actions under the influence of unidentified individuals, with no fault attributed to the bank," PrivatBank stated.

The Man's Position

The man submitted a response to the lawsuit, requesting that the court dismiss the claims, stating that he had diligently complied with the terms of the contract with the bank, timely paid all payments, and had no outstanding debt on the loan, as confirmed by the calculations provided by the bank. However, as a result of fraudulent actions, funds were stolen from his card account on June 16, 2022, specifically a credit limit of 49,229 hryvnias (which is recorded as the outstanding principal) and his own funds amounting to 1,159 hryvnias, totaling 50,389 hryvnias. The citizen immediately reported these circumstances to the bank via the hotline 3700, blocked his payment card, and on June 17, 2022, filed a request for a refund. On June 18, 2021, based on his report from June 17, 2022, the police initiated criminal proceedings under Article 190 of the Criminal Code.

What Did the Court Decide?

The court denied the claim. The man had contacted PrivatBank to cancel the disputed transaction and also reached out to law enforcement regarding the fraudulent actions against him, indicating that he did not have the intention to carry out such a transfer, and the bank does not dispute the fact that he requested the cancellation.

The references from PJSC CB "PrivatBank" regarding the fact that the defendant violated the terms and conditions of banking services by facilitating the illegal use of information that allowed a third party to initiate payment operations are not worthy of consideration, as such arguments are based solely on assumptions without evidential support. The plaintiff did not prove that the defendant lost and/or facilitated the illegal use of his personal identification number or other information that would allow the initiation of payment operations. PJSC CB "PrivatBank" did not respond regarding the results of the internal investigation on this matter. It was also established that the defendant had contacted the bank to cancel the disputed transaction and the law enforcement authorities concerning the fraudulent actions against him, indicating that he truly lacked the intention to make such a transfer, and the bank does not deny the fact of his request for the cancellation of this transaction. The plaintiff's assertions about the defendant's violation of the terms and conditions of banking services, which led to the unauthorized withdrawal of funds from his card account, since he facilitated the illegal use of information allowing a third party to conduct payment operations, are not worthy of consideration as they are based solely on assumptions without evidential support. Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiff's claims should not be granted, as during the court proceedings it was established that they were unfounded and not supported by proper and admissible evidence," the court emphasized.