The depositor of Privatbank blocked the payment due to the withdrawal of 33,117 hryvnias, but later an additional 32 thousand hryvnias were stolen from the account – court decision

A PrivatBank client had a withdrawal of 33,117 hryvnias, and he blocked the card, but another 32,000 hryvnias were missing from it

The citizen immediately blocked the PrivatBank card after detecting the withdrawal of 33,117 hryvnias. However, later, an additional 32 thousand hryvnias disappeared from the account. This is stated in the decision of the Trostyanets District Court of the Sumy Region, published on December 16, 2025.

On 07/11/2024, the man learned through the terminal that a payment transaction in the amount of 20,000 hryvnias was made on 07/11/2024 with his “Universal” card, and then, on 07/22/2024 and 07/23/2024, another transaction in the amount of 13,117 hryvnias was made. He did not make such transactions, so he immediately turned to a PrivatBank branch, where they blocked the specified card and initiated a refund. Based on this fact, he turned to the law enforcement authorities and criminal proceedings were initiated. A month later, I decided to cancel this bank card in order to avoid similar incidents. For this, he turned to the PrivatBank branch, but he was informed that on August 10 and 11, 2024, payment transactions totaling 32,000 hryvnias were made from his Universal card. To the citizen’s legitimate surprise that the card was blocked, the bank employee did not provide an explanation. He also contacted the police about this fact and a criminal case was opened. On 08/10/2024 and 08/11/2024, as well as on the following days, the client did not give any instructions to JSC CB “PrivatBank” to withdraw funds in the amount of 32 thousand hryvnias from his account either in writing or electronically using the electronic system “Privat-24” or in any other way. I did not enter the access codes anywhere, did not give them to anyone, and did not call the 3700 number. He considers it illegal to withdraw money from his card in the amount of 32 thousand hryvnias and charge a commission in the amount of 111 hryvnias, as well as interest in the amount of 1,867 hryvnias. In his opinion, the bank should compensate him for the amount of operations that was illegally withdrawn from the account and restore the balance of funds in the account to the previous state. The credit limit for this card was 33 thousand hryvnias. According to the statement on the movement of funds on the specified account as of October 3, 2024, the total amount of debt was 34,736 hryvnias.

“In the course of the research, it was found that the money was transferred from the card in sixteen transactions, by manually entering the card number, validity period and CVV code on the service of RBA ON LINE KASSA, terminal E0185725 (acquiring bank “Raiffeisen Bank”). It is impossible for the bank to send requests for the return of money according to MPS procedures, since the transactions were carried out with confirmation according to the 3d-secure regulation. Confirmation according to the regulation 3d-secure was sent to the client’s “PAN-like” PC. To carry out these operations, you must have access to the Privat-24 account, which shows the card number, validity period and CVV code. “The PIN codes of the cards were changed after the transactions. Accounts were blocked after the transactions,” PrivatBank reported.

What decision did the court make? The court rejected the husband’s claims. He did not take measures to protect the information that allows the initiation of payment transactions.

“Funds from the plaintiff’s account were transferred using the financial phone number and access to his personal account in Privat-24, so obviously the plaintiff did not take measures to protect the information that makes it possible to initiate payment transactions. The plaintiff reported the unauthorized withdrawal of funds from the account to PrivatBank JSC only on August 16, 2024. For its part, PrivatBank JSC duly informed the plaintiff about all financial transactions, regarding in which funds were withdrawn from the account, as well as informed about an atypical entry into the Privat-24 account. Thus, the indicated circumstances in total indicate that the defendant JSC “PrivatBank” did not violate the rights of the defendant during the execution of payment transactions and, accordingly, there are no grounds for the defendant to restore the balance on the card account. The arguments of the plaintiff’s representative that his client was sure that the card blocked, do not refute the circumstances established by the court. The court also draws attention to the fact that the functionality of the Privat-24 application allows the user to unblock the card account. Therefore, the court considers the claimant’s claims to be unfounded, the court emphasized.