A PrivatBank client lost access to her phone and card, only to discover a withdrawal of 16,995 hryvnias. Here's what the court decided.

A total of 16,995 hryvnias was withdrawn from the woman's bank card through various payment operations. This occurred while she did not have access to her phone number and account. The citizen is demanding that PrivatBank return the funds. This was stated in the decision of the Suvorov District Court of Odessa, published on November 20, 2024.

On August 21, 2022, the woman received a call from an unfamiliar number, where the caller, claiming to be a representative of a mobile network operator, offered setup services. She declined to engage, suspecting fraudulent activity. She did not share any codes or passwords and, after this conversation, contacted the Kyivstar network operator. Once her mobile number was restored, she discovered that unauthorized individuals had conducted payment operations totaling 16,995 hryvnias from her bank card. This means that the transactions took place while the citizen was unable to access her phone number and bank card.

The woman reported this incident to the police, which registered a criminal case under part 1 of Article 190 (fraud) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In a letter dated January 13, 2023, JSC CB "PrivatBank" stated that it could not return the funds because the correct PIN code for the card was entered to withdraw the money.

Case Review

The court found that there was an agreement between the woman and PrivatBank for the provision of banking services, including a credit limit on her card with the possibility of increasing that limit later. Subsequently, the parties signed updated versions of the terms and conditions for banking services.

"The plaintiff contests the operations carried out on the card via cash withdrawals at ATMs, asserting that she did not conduct these operations, and claims that an unidentified person performed the mentioned transactions without her knowledge, as evidenced by the information entered into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations under part 1 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. According to paragraphs 1.6 and 1.7 of NBU Resolution No. 22 dated January 21, 2004, the bank carries out cash management services for its clients based on the relevant contracts and its internal rules for conducting cashless transactions at its discretion," — is stated in the case materials.

What did the court decide?

The court denied the woman's claim. She did not provide evidence that the actions of PrivatBank led to a third party being able to misuse her personal data.

"The plaintiff did not provide evidence that the actions of the bank allowed a third party to misuse her personal data. Given the above, the claims are unsubstantiated and cannot be satisfied," — the court emphasized.