Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 5:22:51 GMT
According to article of the Consumer Protection Code the service provider is liable for damages caused to consumers regardless of the existence of fault. And the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice also establishes the responsibility of banking institutions for fraud or crimes committed by third parties.
iStock
Defendant was the victim of a bank slip scam through the company's customer service channels
Thus the th Chamber of Private Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo TJ-SP denied the seizure of the vehicle of a client of a financial institution because it found that the woman was Phone Number Data a victim of fraud in the author's service channels.
The credit and property financing company alleged that the defendant was late in paying installments of a contract. Therefore he initiated a search and seizure of the vehicle which was sold on a fiduciary basis.
In her defense the client said that she always fulfilled her contractual obligations but was unable to pay a bill on the due date. In the same month she called the company's call center and requested a duplicate of the document.
The attendant sent the bill via WhatsApp — an option available to the consumer according to the author's own website. After days the woman received a call to collect this installment.
A preliminary decision even ordered the seizure of the vehicle but this order was revoked in the sentence. The st Civil Court of Sumaré SP recognized the fraud in issuing the invoice and ordered the vehicle to be returned to the defendant.
On appeal the financial institution claimed that the fraudsters and the victim himself were to blame for what happened who did not verify the final beneficiary of the payment.
At TJ-SP the case's rapporteur judge Carmen Lúcia da Silva highlighted that the fraud took place through the service channels provided by the company.
She explained that the author “has an obligation to ensure the security and privacy of the procedures offered to her customers” and cannot “assign the customer the responsibility for verifying the information contained in the bank slip generated by the bank’s own support service”.
According to the judge “the financial institution did not prove the version that the transaction was carried out through the sole fault of the defendant which constitutes a failure to provide services”.
The sentence had also ordered the plaintiff — after requesting a counterclaim — to return to the defendant the insurance amounts for the installments and the assessment fee for the property. Carmen maintained her determination as she saw no evidence that the client had chosen to contract these terms.
iStock
Defendant was the victim of a bank slip scam through the company's customer service channels
Thus the th Chamber of Private Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo TJ-SP denied the seizure of the vehicle of a client of a financial institution because it found that the woman was Phone Number Data a victim of fraud in the author's service channels.
The credit and property financing company alleged that the defendant was late in paying installments of a contract. Therefore he initiated a search and seizure of the vehicle which was sold on a fiduciary basis.
In her defense the client said that she always fulfilled her contractual obligations but was unable to pay a bill on the due date. In the same month she called the company's call center and requested a duplicate of the document.
The attendant sent the bill via WhatsApp — an option available to the consumer according to the author's own website. After days the woman received a call to collect this installment.
A preliminary decision even ordered the seizure of the vehicle but this order was revoked in the sentence. The st Civil Court of Sumaré SP recognized the fraud in issuing the invoice and ordered the vehicle to be returned to the defendant.
On appeal the financial institution claimed that the fraudsters and the victim himself were to blame for what happened who did not verify the final beneficiary of the payment.
At TJ-SP the case's rapporteur judge Carmen Lúcia da Silva highlighted that the fraud took place through the service channels provided by the company.
She explained that the author “has an obligation to ensure the security and privacy of the procedures offered to her customers” and cannot “assign the customer the responsibility for verifying the information contained in the bank slip generated by the bank’s own support service”.
According to the judge “the financial institution did not prove the version that the transaction was carried out through the sole fault of the defendant which constitutes a failure to provide services”.
The sentence had also ordered the plaintiff — after requesting a counterclaim — to return to the defendant the insurance amounts for the installments and the assessment fee for the property. Carmen maintained her determination as she saw no evidence that the client had chosen to contract these terms.