Fraudsters withdrew money from a woman's card – the court obliged the bank to return the withdrawn funds, cancel the loan, and pay compensation

The Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal agreed with the conclusion of the local court, which obliged JSC CB "PrivatBank" to restore the balance of funds on the client’s account, cancel the credit debt that arose as a result of unauthorized transactions, and compensate her for moral damages.

A resident of Khmelnytskyi region applied to the court after the bank refused to restore the funds on her card account, which were withdrawn due to unauthorized transactions. According to her, on February 3, 2025, five withdrawal transactions totaling 28,424 UAH were made from the account within nine minutes.

On the same day, the woman reported the illegal withdrawal to the bank’s contact center, after which her credit card was blocked. She also contacted the police. Law enforcement authorities initiated a criminal case on fraud.

Despite repeated appeals from the client, the bank refused to restore the balance on her account and cancel the credit debt that arose as a result of these transactions.

Therefore, she filed a lawsuit requesting JSC CB "PrivatBank" to restore the balance on the card account to the state it was before the unauthorized transactions by returning 28,483 UAH, cancel the credit debt that arose from these transactions, and compensate 20,000 UAH for moral damages.

The Khmelnytskyi City District Court of Khmelnytskyi region partially satisfied the claim: it obliged the bank to restore the claimed balance on the plaintiff’s account, cancel the credit debt that arose due to unauthorized transactions, and compensate 5,000 UAH for moral damages.

In the appeal, JSC CB "PrivatBank" argued that the unauthorized transactions were possible due to the plaintiff disclosing data necessary to access her "Privat24" account to third parties, so the bank should not be responsible for the withdrawal of funds.

Additionally, the appellant considered the demand to cancel the credit limit debt an improper remedy and noted that the first instance court incorrectly determined the amount withdrawn from the account.

The appellate court held that the bank’s claims that the client by her actions or inaction facilitated illegal access to her card account or herself disclosed payment card data to third parties are based on assumptions and not supported by proper evidence.

The appellate court noted that access to the plaintiff’s "Privat24" account was recorded from an unusual device after the password was changed. At the same time, in a conversation with the contact center operator, the woman immediately denied logging into the app or making transfers, and during police questioning stated that she only followed one phone instruction from an unknown person – pressing the digit "1" without providing data that could grant access to the account.

The court also stated that the demand to recalculate the credit limit to restore the situation that existed before the unauthorized transactions is a proper remedy under civil law and corresponds to paragraph 4 of part one of article 16 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

At the same time, in case No. 686/8500/25, the appellate court found that the first instance court incorrectly determined the amount withdrawn from the plaintiff’s account. Therefore, it amended the decision in this part – specifying the amount the bank must restore on the client’s account: from 28,483 UAH to 28,424 UAH.

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