Bank is not responsible for withdrawals in flash kidnapping

sakil634

Banks can be held responsible for purchases made with a customer's card in a flash hijacking. But this responsibility does not apply in the case of withdrawals made in this situation. The understanding is from the th Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais. The second instance, however, had to maintain a bank's obligation to pay R$, to a customer, who withdrew the amount during a flash kidnapping. The reason is simple: the customer did not appeal. The rd Civil Court of Belo Horizonte ordered the bank to pay R$, for the money withdrawn from the tellers. As for the remainder (R$ ,), the judge considered that identification was the traders' obligation. In the second instance, the understanding was different.

For the judges, the bank is not obliged to reimburse withdrawals made at ATMs. This is because he could not identify the criminal action. The robbers were like account holders, since they had the password Phone Number List for them. On the other hand, the judges understood that the bank is responsible for reimbursing the amounts spent on purchases. It was proven in the process that the stores were negligent in allowing third parties to use the victim's debit card, without checking the documents. The judges only maintained payment of the money withdrawn because only the bank appealed. Therefore, they cannot amend the sentence to the detriment of the party who appealed. The case In the early hours of April , , armed robbers approached the bank customer.



He was forced to take medicine mixed with a drink. With the victim numb, the robbers got the password to withdraw money. They also made purchases at several establishments. According to the victim, the loss was R$,, of which R$, was withdrawn from ATMs. According to the records, after being attacked, the client ended up in the hospital during the day. Shaken, he had to arrange, with the help of relatives, to block the card. He also visited the stores where the purchases were made in an attempt to identify the robbers. He went to the branch manager to get the money taken by the robbers back. The request, however, was denied. The argument was that the bank could not be responsible for illegal acts carried out by third parties.