“The army employee is dissatisfied with the fact that PrivatBank stopped with him a man received news from Privatbank on refusing to carry out business relations/refusal to provide services through the termination of business relations/cancellation of the agreement and closing of accounts. He insists on the decision because the bank has not provided any confirmation or information about illegal activity on his part. About it […]”, – WRITE: Businessua.com.ua
Army employee is dissatisfied with the fact that PrivatBank stopped with him cooperation
The man received news from Privatbank on refusing to perform business relations/refusal to Provision of services through termination of business relations/cancellation of the agreement and closing of accounts. He insists on the decision because the bank has not provided any confirmation or information about illegal activity on his part. This is stated in the resolution of the Podilsky District Court of Kyiv, published on September 30, 2025.
On 19.02.2025 the man received from JSC CB “PrivatBank” a message of refusal to maintain business relations/refusal of servicing through the termination of business relations/cancellation owners/providing false information/providing information for the purpose of misleading. He disagrees with the said reasons for refusing to maintain business relations/refusal to service through the termination of business relations/cancellation of the agreement and closing the account, and considers that it was from the bank that there was an unlawful termination of agreements with it unilaterally. The bank of 19.02.2025 did not specify what actions confirm its risk, the bank did not provide any evidence or information on conducting illegal activity on his part, which indicates the unreasonableness of such grounds for termination of contractual relationships.
In addition, the report dated 19.02.2025 indicates the impossibility of identification/ verification, as well as the establishment of information on the final beneficial owners. However, he is the sole owner of accounts open to PrivatBank, and it is he who is the ultimate beneficial owner of the funds that enter into accounts. The Bank had to ask information and/or official papers for a proper verification, but there was no such request, so it should be assumed that the Bank had a proper verification in accordance with existing papers and information. The citizen also noted that he is undergoing military service and all accruals are made on the basis of orders of the military unit. He, as a military and direct participant in hostilities, receives appropriate financial support from the state and cash, which is certified by the relevant certificates. The funds that came to his card account from individuals were used only for the needs of the Armed Forces and the military unit and providing the unit. In such circumstances, the bank’s assertion of unacceptable high risk is not true. All incomes were received from official sources and approved by the military unit.
“The bank has reason to consider the use of products of JSC CB” PrivatBank “(Personal Cards) for carrying out operations that have signs of scheme and do not have a clear economic meaning/logical justification. The clients, including the plaintiff, have similar features of financial transactions for the period from 01.01.2024. 3 natural persons and/or merchants are conducted in the organization and conduct of gambling on the Internet and the content of these financial transactions from the Internet About the PVC/FT and Annex 6 “Enhanced Customer Verification Measures”, namely: 1) made in an unusual way; Informed of this in a letter that sent to his residence PKV/FT ”, requirements of Regulation No. 65 and internal documents of the bank, so there are no grounds for recognition illegal, and therefore the claims are unjustified and are not satisfied,” PrivatBank said.
What did the court order? The man was satisfied. The Court declared invalid the commercial bank “PrivatBank” committed by the joint -stock company, a unilateral transaction, issued in the form of a notification of refusal to maintain business relations/refusal of servicing through the termination of business relations/cancellation of the agreement and closing the account dated 19.02.2025. Privatbank’s actions to suspend financial transactions in current accounts were declared illegal. The financial institution was obliged to restore bank services and to renew all banking, card accounts that were opened to commit a unilateral transaction by the joint -stock company Commercial Bank “PrivatBank”, issued in the form of a notification of refusal to maintain business relations/refusal to service through termination of business relations/annulment of the agreement.
“The proper verification includes a certain list of measures used to verify the client in the event of a bank suspicion of such person’s activity. However, the defendant did not carry out a full list of measures. The defendant is obliged to establish the purpose and nature of business relations. The defendant, as an entity, had the obligation to act within Provide explanations, papers or other evidence confirming the legal origin of the funds; IP was immediately broken into a way that is legally and is actually disproportionate. In particular, in accordance with paragraph 8 of Annex # 1 to the Regulation: “If received by the bank of the paper and/or information specified in paragraph 6 of Annex 1 to the Regulations, are not sufficient to refute the bank that the potential client is a company (and also if the potential client refused the bank in providing the necessary for analysis of documents/information. Requirements for Article 15 of the PEC/FT Law. In the understanding of the said rule, the defendant was obliged to contact the plaintiff in the event of a suspicion to determine the source of funds and the purpose of their further use. However, the defendant did not make such an appeal or request to the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant did not provide the bank’s decision to establish inadmissible high risk on the results of the plaintiff’s risk. Summarizing all of the above, the court considers that the bank’s actions to suspend the plaintiff’s bank service were formal and disproportionate in nature, which violated the balance between the interests of financial monitoring and the client’s rights, since the defendant did not prove the criteria for unacceptable degree of risk of the plaintiff and the claim of risk. In such circumstances, all doubts about the interpretation of the grounds for termination of the agreement by the court are interpreted in favor of the plaintiff as a consumer of banking services, in accordance with the principles of integrity, prudence and protection of a weak party in obligatory relations. In view of the foregoing, given that the plaintiff proved the circumstances to which he referred to as the basis of his claims, the court concluded that the claims are satisfied in full.
The gun
Please wait …