“PrivatBank stopped cooperation with the client through the money transfer to his wife, the client did not have the opportunity to access his finances because PrivatBank blocked his account. As it became known, the reason for such actions was a money transfer of UAH 100,050, which he made to his wife. The relevant information is contained in the decision of the Stryi District Court of Lviv region, which was […]”, – WRITE: Businessua.com.ua
Privatbank stopped cooperation with the client through money order to his wife
Customer was not able to access their finances because PrivatBank He blocked his score. As it became known, the reason for such actions was a money transfer of UAH 100,050, which he made to his wife. The relevant information is contained in the decision of the Stryi District Court of Lviv region, which was published on September 9, 2025.
The man found that his bank card was blocked and he could not freely use his funds. However, there are no open enforcement proceedings that could be the basis for blocking the accounts by the Contractor. According to the Unified Register of Debtors, as of 24.02.2025, no information about the citizen was found. The client has repeatedly addressed the JSC CB “Privatbank” to find out the reasons for restriction of access to his card accounts. In response, representatives of JSC CB “PrivatBank” sent an e -mail in which they reported the decision to refuse further cooperation and terminate the contract. According to this report, the decision to terminate the relationship was made on 26.11.2024 due to the detection of unacceptably high level of risk, the lack of necessary documents for verification, the inability to identify or verify, or to detect false information.
The employees of the financial institution did not inform the man about the need to provide any documents for a proper verification, and did not provide sufficient evidence of any actions specified in the report on the termination of cooperation. In addition, the Bank did not provide any confirmation that the actions provided for in the Law of Ukraine No. 361-IX of December 6, 2019 “On Prevention and Counteraction to Legalization (Laundering) of Revenues Produced, Crime, Financing Terrorism and Financing of the Distribution of Financial Destruction. Also, on February 6, 2025, the man received an extra -assembly request from PrivatBank, which was argued that due to violation of the terms of the loan agreement of 16.10.2007, the debt as of 06.02.2025 is UAH 52,489 and UAH 489 and UAH 4,721. Since JSC CB “PrivatBank” blocked access to the account, the man was unable to fulfill obligations under the loan agreement. Therefore, he considers the accrued debt as undue, since due to the actions of employees of JSC CB “PrivatBank” he could not fulfill his obligations in time due to his absence.
“The plaintiff appealed to the employees of JSC CB” PrivatBank “to eliminate obstacles in the use of a card account, but no measures from the bank were taken. On May 19, 2025, the plaintiff’s lawyer filed additional explanations to the court, indicating that the reason for the lock of the account was the transaction of 0,150.11.2024. The wife of the plaintiff, which is confirmed by the marriage certificate of 13.06.2020, ” – stated in the case file.
On March 27, 2025, a court was submitted to the court, in which JSC CB “PrivatBank” stated that under the law, the Bank had the right to unilaterally terminate business relations with clients with unacceptably high risk, in particular, by termination of contracts, as stipulated by paragraph 3 of Article 2 of Article. It is evident from a man’s statement that on November 25, 20124, he made three transfers on 19 950.00 Cr through Mobile Banking, Kyiv, but the purpose and nature of these financial transactions remain unknown. The origin of the funds is unknown. Further use is also unknown. Given the above, JSC CB “PrivatBank”, analyzing the client’s activity on the basis of available data, established for him an unacceptably high level of risk, which became the basis for the termination of business relations. Thus, the bank’s decision to terminate the contract, the closure of accounts with access to the Privat-24 remote control system and lock payments, as well as the establishment of unacceptably high risk is based on the requirements of the legislation, since such actions of the bank as the subject of primary financial monitoring, directly follow from the provisions of Article 15 of the Law of Ukraine. Financing of terrorism and financing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. ”
What decision did the court make? The court rejected the claim of the man because he did not provide sufficient evidence that he had been unreasonably referred to the category of risky clients.
“The plaintiff was unable to prove in court and did not provide adequate evidence to confirm the defendant’s unlawfulness, violation of the plaintiff’s legal rights and interests, or violation of the current legislation. The plaintiff refers only to the defendant’s misconduct on termination Language, indicating the amounts and persons who transferred the funds to the plaintiff’s card, as well as persons to whom these funds were transferred to the plaintiff. Risky, and does not provide evidence that the debt under the loan agreement in the amount of 52 489 hryvnias arose by blocking the account on the basis of the Law of Ukraine “On Prevention and Counteraction to Legalization (Laundering) of Revenues, Crime, Financing of Terrorism and Financing. The plaintiff’s claims for the obligation of JSC “PrivatBank” to cancel the accrued debt under the loan agreement of 16.10.2007 in the amount of UAH 52,489.
The gun
Please wait …