THE Nubank was ordered to pay around R $ 42,000 as compensation for material damages: according to the court decision, issued this month, fintech did not do enough to confirm the authenticity of a client who used the PJ Account to apply a scam over the internet. The case is pending at the TJDFT (Court of Justice of the Federal District and Territories).
Understand the case involving Nubank
In April 2020, the plaintiff bought a vehicle at an online auction and transferred the money to a Nubank account by paying a bill of R $ 52,930. Time passed and the product was not delivered; he later found out it was a scam.
The lawsuit asks for compensation for material damages in the amount of R $ 41,800, because more than that would exceed the ceiling of the Special Courts (small claims).
Nubank claimed that it did not commit any unlawful act, and that the fault was the sole responsibility of the man who made the payment; in addition, the account of the customer who applied the fraud has been canceled. Still, the judge at first instance ruled in favor of the victim.
The decision was based on the documents that Nubank used to open the account: in addition to personal data and photos, there was generic information from the company, which would not be enough to confirm the authenticity of the legal entity.
It is worth remembering that Nubank offers a PJ Account aimed at MEI, EI and EIRELI companies. It has no monthly fee and offers free transfers to any bank; in addition, there is the possibility to issue collection slips with another person’s name and social security number. (Deposit slips, in turn, always bear the name of the account holder himself.)
“Evidently the Defendant [Nubank] it did not check the authenticity of the information contained in the proposal form of the legal entity, as well as all the identification elements used in the opening of the account that the fraudster made use of ”, writes judge Rodrigo Otávio Donati Barbosa.
He notes that “financial institutions respond objectively for the damages caused by an internal accident related to fraud and crimes practiced by third parties in the scope of banking operations”, according to Precedent 479 of the STJ.
Nubank loses appeal in court
Nubank appealed, but was unable to reverse the decision. The company claims to have seen no divergence in the data provided at the opening of the account; however, for the Third Panel of Appeals of the TJDFT, she was unable to prove the regularity in the provision of the service.
In the decision, the second instance judge Gilmar Tadeu Soriano acknowledges that the consumer did not take due care to ensure that the virtual auction was legitimate.
However, he argues: “the fraud perpetrated … was only consolidated because the requested bank also did not surround itself with the measures essential to the opening of the current account by the fraudulent legal entity”.
He continues: “if, on the one hand, the bank understood the documents precariously presented by a third person to be legitimate and sufficient, on the other hand, it assumed the risks inherent in such negligence”.
Wanted by Tecnoblog, Nubank issued this position:
Regarding the case, Nubank informs that the fraud occurred in an environment that was not related to its operation. Nubank regrets the inconvenience that occurred and takes the opportunity to reaffirm that it does not agree with this type of practice and also its commitment to safety and the protection of its customers.
We maintain constant vigilance over the security mechanisms of our operations and the use of our services, with the frequent implementation of technologies that assist in this regard. We also have dedicated teams and we are always updating and improving our internal processes and systems and we seek to advise clients on preventive measures in financial transactions.
We also inform you that the process is still ongoing.
The process, discovered by the Crumbs, runs on TJDFT under number 0719991-03.2020.8.07.0016.