Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
0 comments 
Unilateral Blocking of Digital Accounts, Banking Security Policies, and Recent Court Decisions Expose Conflicts Between Fraud Prevention, Duty of Transparency, and Immediate Economic Impact on Individual and Legal Entity Clients in the Brazilian Financial System.
The blocking of bank and payment accounts without a court order, adopted by financial institutions under the justification of “security,” has been analyzed by the Judiciary in light of the duty of transparency and evidence of concrete signs of irregularity.
In recent decisions, courts recognized failure in service provision when the blocking occurs without specific explanations to the client and without documentation capable of demonstrating the necessity of the measure.
In November 2025, the Court of Justice of the Federal District and Territories upheld a condemnation of a financial institution after a company had its account blocked and was unable to manage essential resources for its activities.
-
The institute that trained the greatest aerospace engineers in Brazil has just opened its first campus outside São Paulo after 75 years: ITA Ceará will have R$ 445 million, new courses in energy and systems, and classes are expected to start in 2027.
-
Luciano Hang, owner of Havan, goes to Juiz de Fora after the tragedy in February, brings R$ 1 million, hands out R$ 2,000 cards, and donates up to R$ 15,000 to victims in the region.
-
The Brazilian passport allows legal residence in dozens of countries without the need for a prior visa, and most Brazilians are unaware that they can apply for residency directly upon arriving in nations in South America, Africa, and even Europe.
-
Petrobras sends a message to Brazilian truck drivers after fuel collapse and reveals plan to have 100% domestic diesel.
In September 2024, the same court confirmed a favorable ruling for an individual client in a similar situation, ordering the unblocking and compensation for moral damages.
In their votes, the judges highlighted the absence of individualized justification and the immediate economic effects of the blocking.
Although cases are analyzed individually, the decisions indicate that generic restrictions, without clear motivation, have been challenged in court.
Circular 3.978 of the Central Bank and the Limits of Prevention Policies
The issue gained visibility with the increased use of digital accounts and the strengthening of policies to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
Circular 3.978, issued by the Central Bank in January 2020, establishes guidelines for the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) policy of institutions authorized to operate in the financial system.
The norm provides for governance, internal risk assessment, client identification and verification procedures, monitoring of operations, and maintenance of records suitable for supporting reports of suspicious transactions.
These provisions allow for the adoption of preventive measures when risk alerts are identified.
However, banking law experts consulted in public analyses of the topic indicate that the circular does not authorize automatic or indefinite blockings.
The regulation requires that decisions be grounded in technical criteria, with records demonstrating why a particular restriction was applied and for how long it remains necessary.
Contractual Transparency and Duty to Inform the Client
In addition to Circular 3.978, Resolution BCB 96, from May 2021, regulates the opening, maintenance, and closure of payment accounts.
The text states that contracts must clearly indicate the circumstances under which blocking, restriction, or closure may occur, as well as the duty to inform the account holder when these measures are adopted.
The resolution also establishes that the client must be notified about the closure date or the reasons that prevent the continuity of the account.
Furthermore, it requires that the institution maintains documentation available for supervisory purposes.
In the assessment of jurists following the topic, these provisions reinforce the obligation to explain what was done, based on which rules, and which elements motivated the decision.
Difference Between Internal Blocking and Judicial Blocking via Sisbajud
Part of the controversies stems from the confusion between blockings ordered by the Judiciary and those conducted internally by institutions.
Judicial blocking occurs through Sisbajud, a system that integrates the Judiciary, the Central Bank, and financial institutions to comply with asset seizure orders or requests for information.
In these cases, the bank acts as the executor of the court order.
The client must seek clarifications and potential contestation in the corresponding process.
A distinct situation is the internal blocking, adopted unilaterally based on risk and compliance policies.
In this case, the institution is responsible for the decision and for maintaining the records that support it.
It is precisely in this context that judicial questions arise regarding the proportionality of the measure and the sufficiency of the information provided to the account holder.
Preventive Blocking of Pix and Temporary Retention of Funds
Another mechanism frequently associated with the topic is the preventive blocking of Pix.
Provided for in the regulation of the payment arrangement, it allows that amounts from a suspicious transaction be retained for up to 72 hours for anti-fraud analysis.
The Central Bank clarifies that this is a temporary measure, linked to specific operations, and not a broad blocking of the account.
Still, experts observe that the use of this instrument must also adhere to criteria of proportionality and communication.
When the retention extends or begins to prevent the general use of the account, similar questions arise as those seen in broader internal blockings.
Criteria Analyzed by the Judiciary in Undue Blockings
In decisions recognizing moral damage, certain aspects repeatedly appear.
One of them is the proven impact of the blocking, such as the impossibility of paying salaries, essential expenses, or continuing business activities.
Another frequent point is the absence of specific justification, with communications based on generic expressions and without indication of objective criteria.
Also weighing in is the lack of clear information regarding the scope of the measure, estimated duration, and procedures for regularization.
According to recent decisions, when this information is not provided, the blocking tends to be evaluated as failure in service provision, especially if there is no demonstration of robust signs of fraud.
Complaints to the Central Bank and Administrative Records
In the administrative sphere, the Central Bank offers the “Meu BC” channel for registering complaints against supervised institutions.
According to the regulator, institutions have a deadline to respond in writing.
The manifestations are used for supervisory and regulatory enhancement purposes, without direct intervention in the individual case.
Before that, it is recommended that the client use the institution’s internal channels, such as customer service, SAC, and ombudsman.
These contacts generate protocols that can be used later.
In judicial disputes, these records, along with statements and received communications, are often used to reconstruct the sequence of events and assess compliance with the duty to inform.
With the advancement of anti-fraud tools and the growth of payment accounts, the discussion about blockings without a court order is likely to remain on the agenda.
In this regulatory and jurisprudential context, what objective criteria and what forms of communication are sufficient, in practice, to demonstrate that a blocking was necessary and proportional?
-
-
-
-
14 pessoas reagiram a isso.