The Justice of Bahia ordered Banco do Brasil to pay R $ 7 thousand in indemnity for moral damages to a customer who had his card used by a scammer in an international purchase of R $ 80 thousand in Bitcoin. The decision was published on Wednesday (01) in the Diário de Justiça of the State of Bahia.
The case reached the 18th Consumer Relations Court of Salvador (BA), after this customer had to pay for the purchase of the cryptocurrencies, even after demonstrating that the expense was not made by him.
Banco do Brasil returned the amount in installments after one month and only after much discussion. The institution argued in its defense that the fact was committed by a third party, a scammer, and that it was not to blame. This argument did not serve to remove the obligation to indemnify his client for moral damages.
Bank of Brazil condemned
Judge Daniela Guimarães Andrade Gonzaga stated in the ruling that the banks must be held responsible for the damages, even if only in the moral sphere, caused to their clients, regardless of guilt, since this is a matter regulated by the Consumer Protection Code (CDC) .
She mentioned that art. 14 of the CDC makes it clear that the financial institution as a service provider "responds, regardless of the existence of guilt, for repairing the damage caused to consumers due to defects in the provision of services".
Gonzaga then sentenced Banco do Brasil to pay R $ 7,000 in compensation for moral damages to the victim of the coup. She drew attention to the fact that "the plaintiff denied having requested the additional card on which cryptocurrency purchases were made" and this was confirmed by documents enclosed in the initial petition:
“Where it is extracted that there was no request for the additional card in the 'Ourocard-e' modality, as narrated in the defense, this tool consists of a type of credit card that does not require password information for purchases, just the information of data ".
Banco do Brasil's defense, on the other hand, was only in the sense that “the amounts were returned to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff or third parties were responsible for the fraud, without, however, minimally proving the allegations”.
From buying Bitcoins to Justice
The whole problem started on May 30, 2019 when the victim realized he no longer had a limit on one of his cards. Upon contacting Banco do Brasil, he was informed by the manager that “cryptocurrency purchases were made abroad, which caused the limit of one of the cards to reach R $ 80,836.44”.
This purchase, however, took place by means of an additional card that was not requested by the customer. As stated in the file, someone had requested on his behalf a card with his data and would have made those purchases.
The additional card was linked to another that had a limit of R $ 100 thousand. This limit was then reached because the victim had made personal expenses on the card under his power.
The point, however, is that even though the victim reported all of this to the bank and that the purchase was not his, she had to pay the bill in full. Until Banco do Brasil resolved the situation, this person paid interest and charges related to this card, as narrated in the judge's report:
"He disputed the amounts, obtaining a negative response from the bank after having made transactions for regular payments of his cards that were considered as the minimum payment of the disputed invoice, a fact that caused interest and charges related to the expenses of the additional card invoice".
The aggrieved customer had to manage “resources invested in financial investments to cover the debt he did not contract, even if this occurred at the time of the occurrence of the event”.
The bank returned the amount only one month later "in installments between June and September 2019" and this is because the account holder tried to "resolve the dispute using administrative means, contesting the debited amounts", as he proved in documents.
With all this, the client decided to sue the court and request compensation of R $ 60 thousand for moral damages. The judge responsible for the case, in sentence, said that R $ 7 thousand would be the appropriate amount.
Gonzaga, when faced with the consumer's vulnerability in producing the evidence, affirmed in a decision that it would be up to Banco do Brasil to prove that “the author was negligent as to the security of his card data”, which the financial institution was unable to. Against this decision, however, there is an appeal.
Reply from Banco do Brasil
THE Bitcoin Portal contacted Banco do Brasil, which, through its communications department, sent the following response:
"Banco do Brasil evaluates the content of the decision to later express its opinion on the matter in the case file".
Register now! Voted the best broker in Brazil. Security, Liquidity and Agility. Don't waste any more time, complete your registration in less than 5 minutes! Access: bitcointrade.com.br