fact-ua.com

After a call from Kyivstar, the subscriber learned about an 8,000 hryvnia loan - what was the court's ruling?

После звонка от Киевстара абонентка узнала о кредите в 8 тысяч гривен - каково было решение суда по этому делу?

A woman received a call from someone claiming to be an employee of Kyivstar. Later, she discovered the existence of a loan agreement for the amount of 8,000 hryvnias. The citizen is demanding the recognition of the loan contract as invalid. This is stated in the decision of the Radomyshl District Court of the Zhytomyr region, published on October 24, 2024.

On February 29, 2024, during her inquiry with the security service of JSC CB "PrivatBank," the woman learned that she had a cash loan issued by the institution on October 27, 2023, for the amount of 8,000 hryvnias. She points out that the details of the bank card to which the funds were transferred under the disputed agreement do not match the number of the bank card opened in her name at JSC CB "PrivatBank," which directly indicates that she did not receive the 8,000 hryvnias. The citizen notes that the conclusion of the disputed agreement occurred against her will, as fraudsters, taking advantage of the presence of her phone number, arranged the loan.

From a copy of the extract from the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, it can be seen that based on the woman's statement from March 14, 2024, information was entered into the ERDR under Part 1 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the fact that on October 27, 2023, an unidentified person called the victim, posing as an employee of JSC "Kyivstar," and fraudulently obtained a bank loan in her name for the amount of 8,000 hryvnias, for which the debt as of February 29, 2024, amounts to 15,840 hryvnias. As indicated in the response from the institution's director addressed to the police investigator, an online loan agreement was concluded between the mentioned company and the citizen on October 27, 2023, and the funds were transferred to a card, although providing her full card number is not possible.

What decision did the court make?

The woman's claim was fully satisfied. The court declared the loan agreement dated October 27, 2023, invalid.

"The application for the conclusion of the disputed loan agreement dated October 27, 2023, does not include data identifying the borrower's identity, in particular the day, month, year of birth, passport details, and TIN, which indicates that the borrower did not undergo full identification. Furthermore, the court established that the funds under the disputed loan agreement were credited to a different card than the one specified in this agreement, which is directly confirmed by the representative of the defendant in the response provided to the investigator's ruling dated April 5, 2024. To conclude an electronic loan agreement, it is necessary to undergo identification and create an electronic signature via a message or through confirmation sent in the form of a letter to an email, excluding the possibility of signing the disputed loan agreement through any of the specified methods and even submitting an application for obtaining loan funds. The case materials do not contain evidence that the plaintiff, in any way, applied the electronic signature identifier, nor is there evidence of her receiving this one-time identifier, and there is also no evidence of registering it in the defendant's information and telecommunications system. Additionally, there is no evidence that the plaintiff received funds according to the disputed loan agreement, thus there are sufficient legal grounds for judicial protection of her rights and interests. At the same time, the court notes that it was the defendant's responsibility to ensure the protection and confidentiality of information regarding the transfer of funds at all stages of its formation, processing, transfer, and storage, to ensure undeniable customer identification, monitoring, detection, and blocking of suspicious transactions. Therefore, based on the above, the court concluded that the citizen's claim should be fully satisfied," the court emphasized.