Oschadbank restricted a woman's access to her account and app – what was the court's decision?

A woman is unable to access the funds in her account and the Oschadbank application. She was unable to determine the reason and demands that the financial institution lift the restriction. This is stated in the decision of the Kryvyi Rih District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (the legal name of the court), published on December 27, 2024.

In April 2024, the woman encountered the inability to use the funds in her account, including conducting expenditure operations due to the imposition of limits and the use of her personal account in the Oschad 24/7 system. She received no prior notice from the bank regarding the imposition of these restrictions. To clarify the reasons for the limitations, she personally contacted Oschadbank's support service. During the communication, the support staff confirmed the imposition of restrictions but refused to explain the grounds for them. To lift the restrictions on her account, she was advised to visit an Oschadbank branch in person.

On June 14, 2024, the woman submitted a complaint to Oschadbank's email. During a video conference, she was asked various questions by a special commission of the bank; after receiving her card, she attempted to register in Oschad 24/7, but the system rejected her, stating that Oschad 24/7 was allegedly blocked. After that, she reached out through Oschadbank's chatbot to find out the reasons for these blocks, but to no avail.

"On April 8, 2024, the bank received a letter from the investigative department of the Main Directorate of the National Police in the Donetsk region and a ruling from the Donetsk regional prosecutor's office regarding temporary access to items and documents that contain legally protected secrets dated April 2, 2024, concerning a pre-trial investigation in a criminal case initiated on March 1, 2024, under part 2 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The pre-trial investigation established that individuals were engaged in fraudulent activities, specifically obtaining pension payments for Ukrainian citizens residing in temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine based on forged powers of attorney. The plaintiff was also included in the list of these Ukrainian citizens. On May 7, 2024, a video call took place with the bank, during which she stated that she had given her payment card to a third party who was conducting banking operations. The citizen was unable to name the last banking operations conducted on her accounts, which indicates her lack of awareness regarding the transactions. Deficiencies were found in the documents, as well as the absence of a personal visit to the bank branch for identification when such an opportunity was objectively available, the presence of a notification from law enforcement about the pre-trial investigation of the criminal case from March 1, 2024, under part 2 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the customer's notification about handing over the bank card to a third party, along with the customer's unawareness of the operations performed on her bank account, raise reasonable doubts about the veracity of the information/documents provided for proper customer verification. To minimize risks in business relationships, in accordance with the requirements of subparagraph 3 of paragraph 68 of NBU Regulation No. 6505, the bank imposed restrictive measures in the form of limits on expenditure operations on the client's card accounts," - stated Oschadbank.

What was the court's decision?

The court ruled in favor of the woman. The State Oschadbank of Ukraine was ordered to restore the service of her payment card and account by lifting all existing restrictions and blocks, as well as to restore access to her personal account in the Oschad 24/7 online banking system.

"The court was not provided with evidence that the bank took measures for identification: it did not require the client to provide information and documents regarding identification, verification, or provision of information within the framework of financial monitoring, nor did it inform the client of the reasons for blocking her access to the application, or propose/demand evidence of her identification by any possible means of communication, to resolve the issue regarding the disputed transaction and possible restoration of access. The court, evaluating the relevance, admissibility, reliability, and sufficiency of each piece of evidence separately, as well as the sufficiency and interrelation of their totality based on its internal conviction, which is based on a comprehensive, complete, objective, and direct examination of the evidence available in the case, concludes that the claim is justified and should be granted," - emphasized the court.