Portuguese 
Spanish 
Judgment of the 4th Panel of the Superior Court of Justice Establishes Understanding That Financial Institutions Are Not Responsible for Losses When the Account Holder Provides Information, Passwords, and Authorizes Access That Enables Banking Fraud
The Superior Court of Justice decided that banks are not responsible for fraud when the client provides information and passwords to fraudsters, in a judgment by the 4th Panel that analyzed a special appeal involving undue loans contracted through a banking app.
The decision states that the financial institution is not liable for scams when the victim, deceived by third parties, takes imprudent and negligent actions, such as sharing personal information and granting access to their checking account.
The case analyzed involves a woman in whose name an undue loan was contracted via the bank’s app, after a phone call with fraudsters posing as customer service representatives.
-
Seniors Over 60 Can Travel for Free Across Brazil: Elderly Statute Ensures Two Free Bus Seats and 50% Discount When Full for Low-Income Passengers
-
Detran RJ starts requiring a toxicological test for those obtaining their first driver’s license in the car and motorcycle category starting June 29; see who will be affected.
-
Florida takes TikTok to court and accuses the Chinese giant ByteDance of ignoring the law that bars minors under 14, while parents and authorities demand more protection for children on social networks.
-
Chamber approves constitutional amendment reducing the age of criminal responsibility from 18 to 16 years; what now?
According to the records, the account holder went to the bank branch twice, accessed the self-service terminal, and authorized the release of a device for accessing her account.
At no point, as recorded in the proceedings, did the client seek assistance from branch employees to confirm instructions or verify the legitimacy of the procedure requested by the criminals.
Exclusive Fault of the Victim
The Justice Court of the Federal District concluded that there was exclusive fault on the part of the victim, removing the responsibility of the banking institution for the financial losses resulting from the scam suffered.
This understanding was maintained unanimously by the 4th Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, which denied the appeal presented by the account holder.
The case rapporteur, Minister Antonio Carlos Ferreira, stated that revising the conclusion regarding the causal link would require reevaluation of facts and evidence, which is prohibited by Summary 7 of the STJ.
Summary 7 establishes that the court cannot reexamine factual matters in a special appeal, limiting the analysis to strictly legal issues of the case.
In a dissenting vote, Minister Raul Araújo emphasized that the fraud did not result solely from phone contacts but also from concrete actions taken by the victim herself.
According to him, the account holder went to the bank branch and granted access to her checking account to the fraudsters, breaking the link of responsibility of the financial institution.
“The appealing party did not attribute to the respondent any conduct that could link the bank to the occurrence of the damaging event,” stated Minister Raul Araújo.
Consolidated Jurisprudence
The position adopted by the 4th Panel reaffirms a jurisprudence that has been consolidated in the STJ, based on the analysis of the effective contribution of the financial institution to the scam.
In this regard, liability is removed when the illicit act involves third parties posing as representatives in phone calls, without the bank’s involvement in the deception.
On the other hand, there is liability when it is proven that banks allowed the leakage of confidential information that only the institution had, which was used to convince the victims.
These data include internal and sensitive information that reinforce the false credibility of the contact, creating the appearance of legitimate communication with bank employees.
With information from Conjur.
