In a recent decision in case No. 5262725-07.2024.8.13.0024, the Court of Justice Unit 4.0 of the District of Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, dismissed a lawsuit for compensation filed by a consumer who alleged she was a victim of bank fraud.
According to the plaintiff, criminals posed as financial institution employees, inducing her to take out payroll loans and make transfers via Pix.
The ruling, dated June 23, 2025, and handed down by Judge Gustavo Câmara Corte Real, recognized the existence of a consumer relationship and the application of the Consumer Protection Code.
However, based on art. 14, §3, II, of the Consumer Protection Code (CDC), the financial institution’s liability was dismissed on the grounds that the damage resulted exclusively from the plaintiff’s own conduct, in conjunction with third parties unrelated to the banking activity.
As highlighted in the court records, the consumer authorized remote access to the bank’s app based on instructions received during the scam, providing passwords and executing commands without any additional verification.
The plaintiff herself confirmed such conduct in a police report, demonstrating that she contributed decisively to the fraud.
The court found that there was no failure in the provision of banking services, nor was there any vulnerability in the institution’s security systems.
The financial transactions were carried out with valid authentication and within operational standards, and no defects or defects were found that would justify holding the institution liable.
The case law in question reinforces the contractual balance in consumer relations and demonstrates that the application of strict liability must consider, on a case-by-case basis, the conduct of the parties involved.
In times of increasingly sophisticated digital fraud, this case illustrates the importance of users paying close attention to security procedures and the confidentiality of their banking credentials.
Camila Daiane Dias Rocha| camila.rocha@nascimentomourao.adv.br
Partner in the Volume Litigation area.
