Advertisements
A customer of a banking establishment fell victim to a scam due to a security breach at the bank and will receive compensation; learn the details.
A checking account holder at a banking institution, who chose not to reveal her identity, fell victim to a scam after her personal data was exposed. As a result, the bank had to pay R$ 32,000 in compensation.
Advertisements
The victim said that she made a Pix transfer to the scammers shortly after being deceived with private details that the bank should have protected. After the transaction, the customer contacted her bank to resolve the situation, but without success, she chose to take legal action.
Read also: Learn everything about Values to Receive
Judge identified the leak of protected banking information
When evaluating the case, Judge Marcos Pagan found the account holder’s narrative consistent. In the meantime, he pointed out that the exposure of the customer’s personal information was evident.
This finding becomes clear when carefully observing the sequence of events. Thus, when considering the matter, he agreed with the customer’s account and emphasized that the exposure of the data became clear from the initial account of the proceedings.
What evidence did the defrauded customer present?
The judge noted that the account holder, in addition to showing proof of the transactions, brought to light the emails exchanged with the account manager. The account statement and records of telephone contacts were also added to this.
He also emphasized that the woman had maintained a long-standing relationship with the bank, with no trace of questionable conduct. Thus, this indicates that she had always based her conduct on integrity with the bank. As a result, her account was given greater weight.
The support of the Consumer Protection Code
Read also: Desenrola Brasil begins second renegotiation phase: Find out who can benefit now
Based on this, the judge grounded his decision in the Consumer Protection Code (CDC) to order the bank to provide compensation. Article 20 of the CDC instructs that banks must preserve such data, preventing adverse situations like the one this customer faced.
In this regard, Judge Pagan also referred to a precedent from the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJ-SP), which states: “in cases involving a scam through an altered bank slip with payment to a recipient other than the legitimate beneficiary, compensation only occurs when it is proven that the victim was induced by the scammer […]”.
