Bank must indemnify customer victim of fraud in the application, defines Justice

Smartphones are increasingly present in our daily lives and despite all the help, this phenomenon can increase the chances of being a victim of bank fraud. an account holder of Nubank who had his cell phone stolen was able to prove in court that yes, the bank had a security breach, allowing his bank account to be accessed even if his credentials had not been used.

In total, BRL 5 was removed from the “saved money” section of a customer's current account in their bank application, which works as a reserve within the account itself. The publicity made to promote this function is that it is “as safe as a vault”, but at the first opportunity the crooks had access to the account — and the fraud victim’s money, to send the money to another account — the transfer was carried out.

The decision proves that banks need to invest in ways to increase application security to prevent more situations like this. The final sentence was taken by the judge Tamara Hochgreb Matos, who claimed that the customer was right to argue that the saved money function did not work as advertised by Purple Bank. The affected client received BRL 5,1 in compensation, referring to the amount subtracted from the account plus interest, and the bank had to pay all attorney fees.

In December last year, the Mercado Livre was ordered to pay moral damages in the amount of BRL 9,8 to a client after fraud. TJ-SP understood that yes, the company left a security hole open, which allowed the money to be removed from the account. This case was cited by the judge to justify the final decision between the fraud victim and Nubank.

Bank tried to counter fraud victim

Despite the fraud victim claiming that the money was removed from the account without their consent, having carried out the blocking of the phone number and the device, the Nubank claimed that he was not at fault in the case. The account holder had his smartphone stolen and on the same day he asked the operator to block the number and device. The transfer of the R$ 5 thousand took place the day after the robbery.

The bank claimed that it could not refund the amount that was transferred to the thieves' account, as the procedure would have been done using the customer's password, without any security breach or damage suffered. After an analysis, the judge pointed out that, in fact, the bank should guarantee the safety of its customers through some confirmation, so the Nubank was found responsible for hacking into the victim's checking account.

So far, the Nubank did not take a position on the court decision, and there is no longer the possibility of appealing the decision. Have you had or know someone who has had the same problem? How was the issue resolved? Tell us in the comments!

See also other features

Did you know that selling a smartphone without a charger can be considered a tie-in? Understand the decision of the Brazilian justice.

Sources: Crumbs l digital convergence