PrivatBank refuses to refund a client 223,284 hryvnias withdrawn from their accounts – the court's decision.

A man lost 223,284 hryvnias from his bank accounts. PrivatBank refuses to return the funds, arguing that the client voluntarily accessed a fake website for receiving assistance from the UN. This was stated in the decision of the Saksahansky District Court of Kryvyi Rih, published on October 29, 2024.

On March 19, 2024, funds totaling 231,907 hryvnias were unjustifiably withdrawn from the man's card accounts. He submitted a written request to the branch of JSC "PrivatBank" for the return of the unjustifiably withdrawn funds, to which he received a response on April 10, 2024, stating that the return of the transferred funds was impossible. The citizen also filed a police report regarding a criminal offense due to fraudulent actions by an unknown individual. On March 21, 2024, information about the criminal offense was entered into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (URPTI) under Part 4 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

"During the investigation, it was established that the compromise of the client's Privat-24 account login and subsequent theft of funds occurred due to the client's own actions. He voluntarily accessed a fake website for receiving assistance from the UN, after which he was redirected to a phishing site for Privat-24, where during the authorization process, he entered his personal information, including his financial phone number, access password for Privat-24, and confidential data from his payment card. Additionally, during a call to the bank, he confirmed his login to Privat-24 using his own account. In other words, he disclosed information to unauthorized individuals, enabling them to access his Privat-24 account, where they obtained information about the client's cards, allowing unidentified individuals to impersonate bank employees and conduct the aforementioned operations with his cards while misleading him during the conversation and encouraging him to voluntarily provide additional confidential information related to transferring funds from his cards," - stated PrivatBank.

What did the court decide?

The court denied the man's claim. The funds transfer operations were conducted with his consent.

"The funds transfer operations were carried out with the plaintiff's consent, specifically, all the transfers he contested were made independently based on the instructions and details provided by third parties. Furthermore, communication was initiated in the 'Help Online' chatbot in the Privat-24 application, and there were no questions raised. Communication with the operator was not recorded. Given the above, the plaintiff bears the responsibility for confidentiality (non-disclosure) of information, as well as the obligation to notify the bank in case of loss, theft of the payment card, and disclosure of information. Considering the above, the court concluded that the claim cannot be satisfied, as the plaintiff did not provide the court with proper and admissible evidence confirming that the defendant violated his rights, since in this case, the plaintiff is responsible for the unauthorized withdrawal of funds from the accounts by third parties," - emphasized the court.