Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
Court Recognizes Banking Failure and Condemns Institution to Refund Twice as Much Plus Damages for Moral Distress
In March 2024, a consumer in Goiânia fell victim to a card machine scam. He purchased an item for R$ 22, but received a charge of R$ 9.1 thousand on his card.
The case concluded in April 2024 at the 10th Special Civil Court of Goiânia. The court ordered Banco Bradesco to refund the amount in double and pay R$ 2 thousand in damages for moral distress.
How the Fraud Occurred with the Card Machine
According to the court documents, led by lawyer Felipe Guimarães Abrão, the customer checked the amount of R$ 22 before entering his PIN. Minutes later, he received a notification of a debit in the amount of R$ 9.1 thousand.
-
Children of absent parents can now sue for emotional abandonment, and compensation for moral damages has already reached R$ 300,000 in lawsuits filed by those who grew up without care and companionship.
-
The government will pay R$ 1.20 for each liter of diesel that Brazil imports and for the first time in history requires distributors to reveal how much they profit — those who hide their margins will face fines of up to R$ 500 million…
-
The pink ankle bracelet project for aggressors of women gains momentum in Brazil and raises an urgent debate about combating domestic violence.
-
A little-known rule in the Civil Code allows for other relatives to be called to the support action when the person who should pay first cannot cover everything alone.
The bank automatically blocked the card upon detecting suspicious activity. However, it did not cancel the transaction. The consumer filed a police report, disputed the charge, and awaited measures that never arrived.
The lack of immediate action was deemed decisive for the ruling.
Judicial Decision Based on the Consumer Protection Code
In the judge’s analysis, the transaction of over R$ 9 thousand was inconsistent with the client’s spending pattern. The bank itself recognized this discrepancy by blocking the card.
Nevertheless, the transaction was not stopped. According to the magistrate, this situation characterized the so-called “internal fortuity”, already established in precedents of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ).
This understanding reinforces that the responsibility of financial institutions is objective when they fail to provide adequate security. Therefore, it does not matter whether there was direct fault on the bank’s part.
“The fraud detection system was not activated at the right time, which allowed the improper transaction to occur, constituting an internal failure of the institution,” the judge stated in her decision in April 2024.
Based on Article 42 of the Consumer Protection Code, the institution was required to refund the amount improperly debited in double. Additionally, it had to pay R$ 2 thousand in damages.
The Card Machine Scam and Its Impact in Brazil
Similar cases have been repeated in different regions of the country. The so-called card machine scam occurs when criminals alter the payment amounts, surprising consumers who believe they are paying small amounts.
Even with alert campaigns, victims continue to be harmed. Experts emphasize that banks need to strengthen their monitoring systems to avoid such high losses.
Legal Precedents Strengthen Consumer Protection
The decision in Goiânia follows precedents from the STJ. The court has previously ruled that financial institutions must compensate customers who are victims of fraud whenever there is a failure in their protection systems.
This understanding provides greater legal security to the consumer. Furthermore, it pressures banks to invest in more efficient prevention technology.
What the Case Represents for Brazilian Consumers
The conviction of Bradesco symbolizes the importance of greater oversight in electronic transactions. It also demonstrates that the Judiciary closely monitors failures in the banking system.
The double refund gives confidence to the customer that their rights will be respected. The compensation for moral damages shows that the impacts are not just financial. Emotional distress and inconvenience also matter.
This case reinforces how electronic scams still pose a high risk in Brazil. It also highlights the urgent need for banks to improve their security and monitoring systems.
In light of this, the question arises: should banks prioritize more advanced prevention technology or enhance the speed of reimbursement for victims?
Be the first to react!