Bank blocked pensioner's accounts from TOT due to suspicion of fraud: what the Supreme Court decided

The First Judicial Panel of the Cassation Civil Court within the Supreme Court, in case No. 331/194/25 dated July 1, 2026, reviewed a dispute regarding the legality of the bank's temporary blocking of accounts and access to remote banking services of a client located in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine.

The court determined in which cases the bank, as a subject of primary financial monitoring, has the right to apply restrictions and require repeated client identification.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff is a pensioner and internally displaced person who received a pension through JSC "Oschadbank" and turned to the court after the bank blocked her accounts, set limits on withdrawal operations, and terminated access to the "Oschad 24/7" web banking.

She stated that she was not informed about the introduction of such restrictions, and when contacting customer support, the bank refused to explain the reasons for the blocking, suggesting she personally visit any bank branch.

In a complaint sent to the bank using a qualified electronic signature, the plaintiff informed that she was in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine and therefore could not personally come to a branch. In her opinion, the imposed restrictions effectively deprived her of the ability to use her own funds, which were her only source of income.

The court of first instance denied the claim, considering that the bank had the right to apply temporary restrictions until the client completed identification.

The appellate court, on the contrary, concluded the bank's actions were illegal, noting that the bank did not prove proper financial monitoring procedures and unjustifiably restricted the client's access to accounts.

Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court established that in April 2024 the bank received materials of a criminal proceeding regarding fraudulent receipt of pension payments by citizens located in temporarily occupied territories using forged powers of attorney.

The plaintiff was among the persons involved in the investigation. After that, the bank introduced temporary restrictions and offered her to undergo personal identification.

Position of the Supreme Court

The court indicated that the bank's right as a subject of primary financial monitoring to refuse contractual relations by terminating the bank account agreement on the grounds of establishing an unacceptably high risk to the client based on risk assessment or reassessment is not absolute but conditional, depending on the occurrence of certain circumstances defined by law, i.e., only if an unacceptably high risk is established as a result of an internal check.

The bank's right as a subject of primary financial monitoring to refuse contractual relations by terminating the agreement is not unlimited; courts must examine the grounds and reasonableness of establishing such a risk category for the client in each case based on the circumstances.

The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not properly assess that JSC "Oschadbank" did not terminate legal relations with the plaintiff but only restricted certain banking services, offering her to undergo personal identification at any bank branch, which she did not do.

At the same time, the Court pointed out that proper verification is carried out, among other cases, when doubts arise about the authenticity or completeness of previously obtained client identification data.

Repeated identification and verification of the client are not mandatory only if the subject of primary financial monitoring has no suspicions or grounds to believe that the existing documents, data, and/or information about the client are invalid and/or outdated.

The court stated that the above circumstances were the basis for imposing restrictive measures in the form of limits on withdrawal operations on the client's card accounts until the plaintiff's personal identification at any bank branch.

As of the time of the case consideration, she had not undergone such identification, although, according to the Supreme Court, the bank had reasonable grounds to believe that the information about the client might be outdated.

The Supreme Court indicated that JSC "Oschadbank" imposed restrictions on withdrawal operations on the plaintiff's accounts due to reasonable suspicion that payment cards might be held by third parties and that third parties might have access to her accounts/payment applications/remote banking systems, and therefore the Supreme Court sees no grounds to satisfy the claim in this case.

The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove the violation of her rights regarding the improper application by the bank of restrictive measures in the form of limits on withdrawal operations on her card accounts.

At the same time, this measure is temporary, and further servicing of payment cards and accounts will be possible after data updating upon the plaintiff's personal visit to the bank branch.

Thus, the Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of JSC "Oschadbank", canceled the appellate court's ruling, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to deny the claim.

This position clarifies the limits of banks' application of financial monitoring measures and emphasizes that temporary blocking of certain banking services is not equivalent to unilateral termination of contractual relations with the client.

Also read: SBU checks and card blocking and when IDPs can actually lose their pension.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.