Privatbank depositor lost money from the card and received a loan in the amount of 82,513 hryvnias: court verdict

The citizen does not want to repay the credit debt in the amount of 82,513 hryvnias, which was formed as a result of the actions of criminals who gained access to funds from her credit cards

PrivatBank insists that the woman pay the credit debt in the amount of 82,513 hryvnias. However, she does not agree, since the debt arose due to the illegal withdrawal of money in the amount of 53,299 hryvnias. This is stated in the resolution of the Lebedyn District Court of the Sumy Region, published on November 18, 2025.

The citizen signed petition No. b/n dated 04/13/2012 to receive financial services. This request, together with the “Banking Terms and Conditions” and “Rates” found on the bank’s official website, constitutes an agreement for the provision of financial services (joining agreement). By signing the application, she confirmed her agreement to the terms and conditions, which were provided to her in writing. The bank gave her the opportunity to use credit funds. The very fact that she used the credit limit and partially paid off the debt confirms the fulfillment of the agreement. The bank had the right to independently increase the credit limit, which reached 53 thousand hryvnias. The client failed to fulfill the obligation by not providing timely money to repay the debt in the amount of 82,513 hryvnias. The existence of debt is confirmed by debt calculation and account statement.

In her objection, the citizen asked the court to reject the claims in their entirety, considering them unfounded. She denies the proper conclusion of the agreement, claiming that the credit agreement is drawn up in writing (Article 1055 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), and non-compliance with this form makes it invalid. She states that she did not sign the “Regulations and Rules for the Provision of Banking Services” and “Bank Rates”, and the bank employees did not familiarize her with them, therefore, they are not part of the agreement. Refers to the legal opinion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 342/180/17, according to which unsigned provisions and estimates cannot be considered part of the agreement. In addition, there is no agreement on the amount of interest, penalties and fines in her application form. Insists that the Law of Ukraine “On the Protection of Consumer Rights” applies to disputed relationships. The bank did not provide the information required by Part 4 of Art. 11 of this Law (loan amount, detailed cost description, annual interest rate), in writing. He notes that the accrued debt for the body of the loan (66,992 hryvnias) exceeds the amount of the established credit limit (53 thousand hryvnias), which indicates the groundlessness of the demands. The debt arose as a result of the illegal withdrawal of money (53,299 hryvnias) on April 25, 2021, after the mobile number was blocked by unknown persons. She immediately notified the bank and law enforcement agencies, which was entered into the EDPR. Since the bank did not prove that she contributed to the illegal use of data, the bank is responsible for these transactions.

What was the court’s decision? The lawsuit of the commercial bank “PrivatBank” joint-stock company was partially satisfied. The debt will be collected from the citizen in favor of the financial institution under the credit agreement on the provision of banking services No. b/n dated 04/13/2012 in the amount of 66,992 hryvnias.

“The defendant denied the legality of the plaintiff’s demands, because on April 25, 2021, after her mobile number was blocked by unknown persons, funds in the total amount of 53,299 hryvnias were withdrawn from her account, in particular, by ordering the purchase of goods in installments “Payment in installments”. The fact that unknown persons took possession of the defendant’s money was recorded in the ERDR on May 14, 2021. The defendant noted that the debt arose as a result of fraudulent actions, and that she informed the bank about the forgery of the SIM card only on April 30, 2021. The court takes into account the circumstances established by the Sumy Court of Appeals in case No. 950/1014/22, which related to the defendant’s objection to the same transactions dated April 25, 2021 the conduct and confirmation of disputed transactions was reliably known to the initiator of the transfers. It was impossible to carry out financial transactions by third parties without the disclosure or loss of information by the user that allows the initiation of payment transactions. At the time of the disputed transactions, JSC “PrivatBank” did not receive any notifications/statements about the loss of access to the financial number or its possession by third parties The court found that since the defendant notified the bank about the counterfeiting of the SIM card only after 5 days (April 30, 2021), it cannot be considered as an urgent notification to the bank. Thus, the fact of the defendant’s responsibility for the unauthorized use of funds is established and mandatory for this proceeding. Since the decision of the Sumy Court of Appeals established that the defendant is responsible for the losses caused by the use of confidential data, the amount that was written off on 04.25.2021 – 53,299 hryvnias and accumulated at the expense of the “Payment in installments” service – was legitimately included in the defendant’s debt, since the illegality of the bank’s actions was not proven. Even the exceeding of the limit -53 thousand hryvnias is explained by the plaintiff as an overdraft (short-term loan), the possibility of which was provided for in the terms of the contract the plaintiff provided evidence of the conclusion of the accession agreement, the actual use of the funds and the defendant’s failure to fulfill the obligation to return the loan body, the demand for debt recovery for the loan body (overdue loan body) in the amount of 66,992 hryvnias is justified and subject to satisfaction. accrual of the interest rate, which was also repeatedly changed unilaterally. Accordingly, the collection of interest for the use of the loan in the amount of 15,521 hryvnias is unjustified, since the bank did not prove the existence of a condition for the use of the loan in such an amount. hryvnias, the court considers it necessary to refuse,” the court emphasized.

The source