Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
Decision of the 21st Special Civil Court of the fluminense capital determined the refund of R$ 9,910 to an account holder who would pay R$ 10 for strawberries in Botafogo. The court pointed out the transaction outside the client’s profile and applied the logic of internal fortuity in banking operations.
The Justice of Rio de Janeiro determined that the Banco do Brasil refund R$ 9,910 to an account holder who, when trying to pay R$ 10 for two boxes of strawberries in Botafogo, was charged nearly ten thousand reais on her debit card.
The sentence was approved on November 10, 2025 by the 21st Special Civil Court of the capital district.
According to documents reported by the press, the consumer entered the password, but the card machine was small and did not allow her to clearly see the amount. After the purchase, the seller ran towards a car. Upon checking her statement, the client saw the debit of R$ 9,910.
-
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.
-
Government enacts new law requiring ex-couples to share custody of pets in case of divorce, with rules for time of cohabitation, veterinary expenses, and loss of ownership in cases of animal abuse.
The transaction was directed to an account identified as “Recarga*Empresagolps”, a point mentioned by the court when assessing the plausibility of the transaction. The decision ordered full reimbursement but denied moral damages.
The case gained attention for highlighting a “card machine scam” with charges far exceeding the actual price, a phenomenon that has already prompted police operations and court rulings in different states.
Charge of R$ 9,910 for Strawberries Costing R$ 10
The incident occurred on Rua Mena Barreto, in Botafogo (RJ), when the consumer purchased strawberries from a street vendor. The purchase was supposedly for R$ 10, but the actual charge was almost a thousand times higher.
The lay judge responsible for the draft ruling, which was later approved, emphasized that the transaction “completely deviates from the profile” of the plaintiff, who has no purchase history near that amount on debit.
The very name of the recipient registered in the transaction, “Recarga*Empresagolps”, was mentioned in the documents as a suspicious element, reinforcing the theory of fraud.
Why the Bank Was Ordered to Refund the Money
The court applied the established understanding that financial institutions are objectively liable for fraud arising from internal fortuity, inherent risks of the service, in banking operations, including the use of cards. The STJ Summary 479 establishes this premise.
Furthermore, the STJ has already stated that banks must identify and block transactions that deviate from the client’s profile, especially when monitoring systems indicate atypical amounts. This duty of security has been reiterated in recent rulings.
In the specific case, the court concluded that the operation of R$ 9,910 deviated from the plaintiff’s standard, and it was up to the bank not to authorize the transaction or to take additional checking measures.
Moral Damage Denied and Scope of the Decision
Although it recognized the security failure and ordered reimbursement, the court did not grant moral damages to the consumer as it understood that no autonomous illicit act by the bank was configured that would justify extrapatrimonial compensation.
Practically speaking, the sentence restores the amount taken and reaffirms the duty of banks to monitor transactions outside the profile, but maintains the requirement for objective parameters for granting moral damages.
For consumers, the decision reinforces that recording consumption patterns, immediate communications to the bank, and police reports are useful tools to demonstrate atypicality and good faith in similar disputes. (Jurisprudential context).
For the market, the message remains: anti-fraud systems need to cross-reference value, location, and customer history, with barriers on anomalous transactions in debit and credit.
Summaries and Precedents that Support the Consumer
The STJ Summary 479 and Theme 466 (repetitive resources) consolidate that banks are liable for frauds by third parties when related to activity risk, and they are responsible for organizing prevention and response structures.
In 2023, the STJ reinforced the duty to prevent atypical transactions from the customer profile; in 2025, the Court reiterated that banks and payment institutions must indemnify when security failures enable scams, such as the false central.
Also in 2025, the STJ decided that the financial institution that compensates the consumer may seek recovery from the acquirer that provided the card machine used in the fraud, sharing the losses within the service chain.
How to Protect Yourself from the “Card Machine Scam”
Prefer contactless payments at trusted terminals and check the amount on the screen before entering your PIN. If the screen is tiny or the seller is in a hurry, cancel. In case of doubt, opt for Pix with recipient verification. (Good practices derived from recurring cases).
Keep bank alerts active on your phone and immediately notify the institution if a charge outside the profile appears. File a police report and open a dispute through the app to create useful documentation for any future legal action.
When shopping on the street, do not hand over your card to the seller and do not enter your PIN into equipment that you cannot read clearly. If this occurs, take a photo of the receipt and keep names and locations for easier investigation.
In your view, who should bear the loss in scams like this: the bank, for security failure and profile analysis, or the consumer, for agreeing to pay on machines without checking the amount? Leave your opinion in the comments.
-
-
-
-
10 pessoas reagiram a isso.