The Guadiana Interior Agricultural Credit Union will have to pay 44 thousand euros to a deceived customer, on the phone, by a scammer. She introduced herself as a bank employee and, showing knowledge of the customer's balance and other data, convinced her to give him personal codes, under the pretext of saving her from a… crime.
Despite a woman having transmitted her banking details to a person who called her and identified himself as being from the Agricultural Credit Risk and Security Department and “cleaned” her of her account 38.954,64 euros, the General Competence Court of Serpa ordered the bank to pay the amount withdrawn and compensation of 5.000 euros, for non-pecuniary damage, both plus late payment interest.
Unconformed, the Guadiana Interior Agricultural Credit Bank (CCAG), based in Moura, appealed to the Court of Appeal of Évora (THREE) that in a ruling dated the previous day 13 of September, confirmed the decision of the 1st Instance, justifying that “the transfer was improperly made from the account without express order from the customers”.
In the ruling to which Lidador NotĂcias (LN) We had access, o TRE maintains that no day 22 February 2022, the person who called the deceived woman, convinced her that “he wanted to prevent the execution of a transfer in progress and mentioned the exact amount of 38.954,64 euros, and agreed to send you the codes you received on your phone via SMS”, the judges conclude.
The Court of Appeal magistrates cement the conviction of their decision, with the fact that the banking entity makes available through the banking platform, the homebanking service, “assumes that it equips its IT system with a mechanism that prevents third parties from accessing customers’ personal data”, adding that “it was proven” that it was the bank’s fault that allowed someone outside to pretend to be an employee of the credit institution, “creating total conviction and credibility, that they would actually be speaking to someone from the bank”, Remata.
in the judgment, TRE judges justify that “the burden of proof that the customer consented to the execution of the transfer in question falls on the bank, which in this case has demonstrated the opposite.”, justifying that the security conditions of customer data were “not ensured”, therefore the service provider, read credit institution, must “immediately reimburse the amount of the unauthorized payment transaction and restore the debited payment account to the situation it would have been in if the transaction had not been executed”, support
In the summary of the decision, the judges reaffirm that “the transfer of funds presupposes an order from the holder of the deposit account, whereby, this assumption has not been demonstrated, the responsibility lies with the banker, how in the sentence it was well decided, concluded the trio of judges from the Court of Appeal of Évora.
Without ever contesting the action brought by its clients, CCAGI maintained in its appeal that the failure to notify its agent “violated the sentence of procedural nullity, Therefore, the appealed sentence must be revoked.”, further considering that “the facts alleged by the authors of the action, do not allow the court to decide, in terms of legal decision as he did”, arguments that did not convince the TRE judges.
Teixeira Correia
(journalist)
