A Kharkiv citizen should not pay “Privat” 47,425 hryvnias of an illegal loan: the court’s verdict

The client of PrivatBank does not agree to repay the loan debt that arose as a result of the actions of fraudsters

PrivatBank forces the husband to repay the credit debt in the amount of 37 386 hryvnias. However, he refuses, as the attackers took possession of money from his account in the amount of 47,425 hryvnias. This is reported in the decision of the Slobid District Court of the city of Kharkiv, published on November 17, 2025.

On October 1, 2021, the man signed a petition to join the terms and rules of providing financial services. His handwritten signature was made on a tablet, which corresponds to the provisions of the NBU Resolution No. 151 dated 13.12.2019 “On approval of the Regulations on the use of digital handwritten signatures in the banking system of Ukraine”. Later, he expressed a desire to use the “Instant installments. Cash loan” service, familiarized himself with the current terms of lending, and on February 9, 2022, he signed a credit card using a one-time password. According to the terms of the contract dated February 9, 2022, he received credit funds to pay for the goods and undertook to repay part of the debt amount and interest on the loan on a monthly basis and within the terms specified in the loan schedule. Contrary to the terms of the credit agreement dated 02/09/2022 on the proper, full and timely fulfillment of obligations, the client does not properly fulfill the obligations under the credit agreement, does not make monthly payments, due to which as of 07/17/2023 he has a debt in the amount of 37,386 hryvnias, namely: 37,349 hryvnias – debt for the loan body; 37 hryvnias – arrears due to overdue interest.

The husband has filed a counterclaim to JSC CB PrivatBank, in which he asks to declare the contract dated February 9, 2022 invalid, to oblige JSC CB PrivatBank to restore the remaining funds in the account. On February 9, 2022, he spoke by phone with an unknown person who expressed a desire to purchase goods from him through the “OLX” platform. As a result of the negotiations, they reached an agreement, but the funds did not arrive on his bank card. He did not divulge any passwords or other information, but after informing the buyer that he had not received the money, he received a call on his phone and was asked if he confirmed the transaction, to which he answered yes. Subsequently, a notification was received about the debiting of the credit card in the amount of 4,149 hryvnias and 1,777 hryvnias. On the same day, he contacted the branch of JSC CB “PrivatBank” and reported illegal actions of unknown persons and stated the need to block his credit card. During the conversation with the bank employee, he learned that he allegedly opened the line “Instant credit. Payment in installments” – a credit agreement for the purchase of goods for the total amount of 41,499 hryvnias in the store of the “ALLO” chain, which is located in Kyiv, but he did not make any purchases in Kyiv on February 9, 2022, he did not issue loans, he was actually in Kharkiv. In addition, on 09.02.2022, he applied to the police, after an inspection by which, on 18.02.2022, a notice of an offense was entered into the Criminal Code on the grounds of the crime provided for in Part 3 of Art. 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. At the time of the filing of the lawsuit, he was recognized as a victim in the specified criminal proceedings, and in July 2023 the criminal proceedings were transferred to the Holosiivsky District of Kyiv for a pre-trial investigation at the place of the crime. Therefore, the citizen never concluded and had no intention of concluding a credit agreement dated February 9, 2022 for the purchase of goods in Kyiv.

What was the court’s decision? The court rejected the claim of the joint-stock company commercial bank “PrivatBank” for debt collection. The husband’s counterclaim against the commercial bank “PrivatBank” joint-stock company for invalidating the contract and the obligation to perform certain actions was refused.

“On February 9, 2022, several credit agreements were concluded using the husband’s account, which are not recognized by him and are disputed by him in court. Thus, on February 9, 2022, at 13:08:41, credit agreement 22020932944974 was concluded, which is the subject of consideration in this case, and on February 9, 2022, at 1:13 p.m., another credit agreement, which is not disputed within the scope of this case. At the same time, declaring the obligation of JSC “PrivatBank” to restore the balance of funds on the account as of 02/09/2022, it does not provide an account statement or other financial document on the basis of which the balance of funds on the card can be established until 02/09/2022 at 13:08:41 above, the court indicates that until the issue of the legality of the conclusion of the credit agreement on February 9, 2022 at 13:13 between the parties and the examination of the account statement for that day, the resolution of the issue of the obligation of JSC KB “PrivatBank” to restore the balance of funds on the account will be premature, and therefore the counterclaims in the specified part are not subject to satisfaction internal conviction, which is based on a comprehensive, complete, objective and direct examination of the evidence available in the case, as well as the propriety, admissibility, reliability of each piece of evidence separately, the sufficiency and mutual connection of the evidence in their totality, after checking all the arguments and objections of the parties, the court came to the conclusion that the original claims of JSC CB “PrivatBank” and the counterclaims of the citizen cannot be satisfied”, – emphasized the court.

The source