Bradesco ordered to pay R$23,000 to customer defrauded in virtual scam
The Pernambuco Court of Justice (TJPE) has ordered Bradesco bank to compensate a 68-year-old customer R$23,000 after she fell victim to a virtual scam. This decision overturned a lower court ruling that placed sole responsibility for the loss on the consumer. The bank is now required to pay R$15,000 for material damages and R$8,000 for moral damages.
The incident occurred on January 28, 2025, when two fraudsters impersonated a judge and the victim's lawyer during a video conference. They convinced the woman to pay two invoices, totaling R$15,000, under the pretense of judicial costs for a lawsuit. Subsequently, the criminals took out two loans in the client's name, for R$27,635.92 and R$9,000. Although Bradesco canceled these loans, it proceeded to honor the invoice payments even after the client reported the fraud to her branch manager and the Customer Service (SAC) before the transactions were completed.
The appeals court, presided over by Judge Marcos Antônio Tenório, cited Superior Court of Justice (STJ) precedent stating that financial institutions are objectively liable for third-party fraud within banking operations. The judge argued that while criminals executed the fraud, it was facilitated through the bank's digital services, which should have had mechanisms to detect unusual activity. Crucially, the customer had alerted Bradesco to the scam before the invoices were paid, giving the bank sufficient time to intervene. The court noted Bradesco's contradictory actions: canceling the fraudulent loans while allowing the invoice payments, despite both occurring within the same fraudulent scheme, indicating a service failure.
This judicial decision highlights the evolving legal responsibilities of financial institutions in safeguarding customers against increasingly sophisticated virtual fraud. The ruling emphasizes that banks cannot solely attribute losses to customer negligence when their digital platforms are exploited. The court's reasoning suggests an expectation for banks to implement robust anomaly detection systems and proactive fraud prevention measures, particularly when alerted by a customer. This case underscores a systemic challenge: balancing the convenience of digital banking with the imperative of security. Future regulatory and technological developments may focus on enhancing bank accountability for preventing unauthorized transactions, even when customer credentials are compromised, thereby shifting the burden of risk more towards institutions that facilitate these digital interactions.
AI-generated to prompt reflection — not editorial opinion, not advice, not a statement of fact. How this works.