Fraudsters Withdrew a Deposit via “Privat24”: The Supreme Court Ordered the Bank to Return 40,000 Euros to the Customer
3 August 21:15
With the spread of online banking, legal disputes are arising with increasing frequency in which financial institutions consider the successful authorization of transactions via phone or computer to be sufficient proof that the customer personally consented to the transactions.
On July 2, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Case No. 727/48/24 regarding the return of a deposit from which funds were debited via a remote banking system—without the customer’s actual consent, according to "Komersant Ukrainian".
How the Fraudsters Gained Access to the Deposit
As the court established, in 2011 a woman opened a deposit account at PrivatBank in the amount of 40,000 euros. The contract was automatically renewed, and she received interest exclusively at a bank branch, verifying her identity with her passport. The depositor did not use the “Privat24” online banking service.
After the full-scale invasion began, the woman left the country and remained outside Ukraine from the fall of 2022 until mid-March 2023. Upon returning home, she contacted the bank to withdraw her deposit. However, it turned out that the deposit had been closed early via “Privat24,” the funds had been transferred to card accounts, and subsequently withdrawn as cash via ATMs.
The customer stated that she had not given any instructions to close the deposit or transfer the funds, after which she contacted law enforcement. A criminal investigation was opened into the possible fraud. At the same time, the bank refused to return the funds, arguing that all transactions had been authorized using the customer’s financial phone number. The courts of first and appellate instance ruled in favor of the depositor, after which the bank filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
What the Supreme Court Decided
The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts and emphasized that the bank is responsible for ensuring an adequate level of security for electronic payment services. The ruling states that if funds were debited without the customer’s consent, this indicates unauthorized interference with the banking payment system; therefore, the successful authorization of transactions alone does not mean that they were carried out by the account holder.
Watch us on YouTube: important topics – without censorship
The court noted that the bank failed to provide evidence confirming that the plaintiff herself had registered with “Privat24”; opened card accounts; transferred funds from a deposit account; or disclosed confidential information to third parties that enabled these transactions to be carried out.
Furthermore, the case file confirms that after discovering the loss of funds, the woman promptly contacted the bank and law enforcement agencies, which also indicates her lack of fault.
When a Customer Is Liable for Fraudulent Transactions
The Supreme Court separately formulated an important legal conclusion: a payment services user may be held liable only if the bank proves that it was the client’s actions or inaction that led to the loss or disclosure of the data necessary to conduct the transactions.
In other words, the financial institution bears the burden of proving that the customer, through their own negligence or intentional actions, facilitated unauthorized access to the account. The mere fact of conducting transactions via online banking or using a financial phone number cannot automatically indicate the depositor’s fault.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision to terminate the deposit agreement. The court noted that the funds were debited without the depositor’s instruction, personal identification, presentation of documents, or other procedures stipulated in the agreement. The court deemed such actions a material breach of the terms of the deposit agreement by the bank.
As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which ordered the bank to return 40,000 euros of the deposit and terminated the deposit agreement.
Read us on Telegram: important topics – without censorship
