It was not possible to avoid the blocking of Privat24: the loss of 101,826 hryvnias and a court decision

The attackers notified the client about blocking the Privat-24 application, she took certain steps that led to the loss of money from accounts in the amount of 101,826 hryvnias

Woman received a mobile call from a pseudo-PrivatBank regarding the blocking of the Privat-24 application. She performed certain actions, which caused the loss of money in the amount of 101,826 hryvnias. This is stated in the decision of the Sadhirsky district court of the city of Chernivtsi, published on November 19, 2025.

On January 3, 2025, the woman received an incoming call from a number belonging to JSC KB PrivatBank, where the robot informed her that her mobile application Privat-24 was blocked and to activate it, she needed to press the number 1. After following the instruction, she entered her Privat24 application, there were no changes in the account status, but after a few moments the application was blocked, the phone turned off and it started to reboot, which lasted about 20 minutes. Later, the phone returned to the “factory” settings, there were no saved numbers, programs and other information on it. During the phone reboot, an unknown person increased the credit limit on the credit card to 75,000 hryvnias and transferred funds in the amount of 73,826 hryvnias to an unknown account. In addition, at this time, the specified person executed two credit agreements in her name under No. 25010300062861 and No. 25010300062862 in the amount of 15 thousand hryvnias each, of which 28 thousand hryvnias were transferred to her Universal credit card, and later transferred to an unknown account. The total amount of withdrawal of funds without her consent is 101,826 hryvnias. Immediately after detecting unauthorized access to bank cards and withdrawing money from them, she called the bank and blocked them, and also informed the bank at number 3700 about the specified situation. In a telephone conversation, the bank operator confirmed the fact of unauthorized access of third parties to the accounts and withdrawal of money from them, while noting that the access was not from a mobile phone, but from a computer. She also informed the police about fraudulent actions, on the basis of which criminal proceedings were opened on January 4, 2025 under Part 4 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

At the court hearing, the woman was interviewed as a witness and gave testimony, the content of which coincides with the information presented in the lawsuit. Additionally, she noted that she planned to sell sneakers through the online store “OLX”, in which she placed an ad on January 3, 2025. After placing the ad, she made a payment of 29 hryvnias for its advertisement (placement in the highest rating of impressions) from the Dlya platat card. After 20 minutes, a message was received on her phone in the Telegram program that the sneakers were sold, with a link to the store’s website, which you need to go to and confirm the sale and choose a card to receive money. She followed the link, confirmed the sale and receipt of money on the card (put the appropriate marks), after which she was redirected to the “Privat-24” program to select the card to which funds must be credited. However, the money never arrived on the card and she left the program. A few minutes later, she received a call from a number belonging, as she believed, to JSC CB “PrivatBank”, where a voice told her that “Privat-24” was blocked for the relationship. To enter it, you need to go through authorization, which was done. After logging into the app, her phone turned off.

“According to this fact, an official investigation was conducted, as a result of which it was found that the withdrawal of money from the plaintiff’s card was done by a third-party Internet resource, terminal MONO011J, retailer MONO_Bank_11, owner of MONODirect. The plaintiff entered the Privat-24 program by entering the correct login and password, according to her words in a telephone conversation with the bank operator herself, as she independently followed the link provided to her it is unknown where she logged into Privat-24, after which payment transactions took place, which she does not recognize. However, it was the plaintiff’s actions that led to the disclosure of payment transactions. In particular, the plaintiff, due to her own inattention and carelessness, gave fraudsters access to her payment tool, and the amount of information disclosed by her turned out to be quite sufficient for third parties to gain control over her application “Privat-24″ for the possibility of making disputed transactions,” PrivatBank said.

What did the court decide? The woman’s claim was satisfied. The court decided to terminate credit agreements No. 25010300062861 dated January 3, 2025, No. 25010300062862 dated January 3, 2025, executed in the joint-stock company commercial bank “PrivatBank” in her name. The financial institution was ordered to stop all credit debt accruals under agreements No. 25010300062861 dated January 3, 2025, No. 25010300062862 dated January 3, 2025, SAMDNWFC No. 00056741411 dated December 17, 2019. to cancel the credit debt, interest, penalties and other penalties for the use of used credit funds, which were formed as a result of financial operations (transactions) on January 3, 2025. Joint-stock company commercial bank “PrivatBank” must restore the balance of money in its account, opened on the basis of agreement No. SAMDNWFC00056741411 dated 17.12.2019 (Universal card), to the state it was in before the financial operations (transactions) were carried out on January 3, 2025, in the amount of the credit limit of 38 thousand hryvnias.

“The court concludes that there is a violation of the plaintiff’s rights, since she had no intention and desire to carry out any bank transactions on her bank account, receive credit money and use them during the period of January 3, 2025, by her actions or inaction she did not contribute to the disclosure of personal data, the use of the PIN code or other information that enables the initiation of payment transactions, she did not give consent to third parties to perform such actions, after discovering debiting money from her account filed a complaint with the police and informed the bank about it,” the court emphasized.

The source