PrivatBank refuses to return 75,000 hryvnias to a Kyiv resident that vanished from his credit account. Here's the court's ruling on the matter.

A man lost 75,000 hryvnias from his bank account. PrivatBank refuses to return the funds, as the client himself disclosed information that enabled the financial transactions. This is stated in the decision of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv, published on December 25, 2024.

Between November 17, 2023, and November 20, 2023, unauthorized withdrawals totaling 75,000 hryvnias were made from an account opened in the man's name at PrivatBank JSC. The withdrawals occurred without his involvement, and he became aware of the illegal transaction from PrivatBank employees, prompting him to contact law enforcement.

After a criminal case was initiated, on February 2, 2024, the man submitted a written request to the management of PrivatBank JSC in Dnipro, asking to suspend interest accrual on his loan agreement, as he had been a victim of fraud. He received no response to his written inquiry. He also noted that just a few days before the funds were stolen, the credit limit on his card had been increased to 75,000 hryvnias, and almost immediately, those funds were taken.

"The plaintiff revealed information through his own actions, which allowed third parties to gain access to the payment instrument," PrivatBank stated.

What was the court's decision?

The court denied the man's claim. The disputed transactions from his cards occurred between November 17, 2023, and November 20, 2023, yet he only filed a complaint on February 7, 2024, nearly three months after he became aware of the transactions.

"The disputed transactions were accompanied by the plaintiff's authentication from his mobile device, as well as notifications from the bank to his financial number. The payment operations for transferring funds from the plaintiff's payment card were conducted using the credit limit funds, meaning he does not have the right to ask the court to obligate the bank to restore the remaining credit funds by requiring the bank to transfer them to the plaintiff. The stated demands are not a proper means of protection and aim at the unlawful enrichment of the plaintiff through funds that do not belong to him," the court emphasized.