Customers Federal Savings Bank that had the balance of Service Guarantee Fund (FGTS) Emergency practically cleared by scammers are having trouble getting the money back, as shown in State of Minas this Monday (26). The disputes opened by the victims do not find fraud, according to the institution, which claims “banking secrecy” in order not to explain the reasons for returning the amounts. But, after all, what to do in this case?
Marbele points out that the client cannot be harmed by a failure. “If a scammer manages to defraud the bank’s security system, the bank exploits this financial activity, he (bank) must respond, because it is within his service”, he points out.
the same opinion of Victor Cerri de Souza, also a lawyer specializing in civil law and data protection and privacy. For the lawyer, Caixa is responsible, since the institution must keep an eye on situations in which the application – in this case, Caixa has – has vulnerable access, as has been happening, according to reports of fraud victims.
“A typical case of strict liability, protected by Article 927 of the Civil Code, where, regardless of fault, the person is responsible for that circumstance, because the Caixa that manages that application, knows its functionality and who immediately takes the risk objective of this type of situation to happen. It is she who must monitor and guard issues that leave access vulnerable, ”says Cerri.
The lawyer warns that the case will be taken to Justia when all resources with the bank are exhausted. “The ideal to look for, then, a lawyer, based on that, introducing one to protect the return of these losses, including those generated by the vulnerability of the data”, he says.
“It hurts the person’s autonomy to have the resource. The bank cannot assume that it will want to withdraw the money. The person has to choose the best path for the resource that belongs to him. ”
In this Monday’s report, the State of Minas showed that Caixa refuses to give details about the fact that it did not find irregularities in the account of customers who were victims of the fraud. According to the institution, the data are confidential and are not informed to “safeguard the banking system.”
Marbele points out that the attitude is not correct, but that in an eventual process, the bank is obliged to present the detailed reasons for the money not being returned to customers.
“Not correct, but the consumer will have to look for it in the Judiciary, because in the process the bank has a duty to present the evidence. In the process, this becomes an obligation ”, he guarantees.
Victor Cerri disagrees with the answer given by Caixa and says that the account holder must know details of that denial. The bank, according to the lawyer, must inform data about the financial movement and who made such action, including the IP (identification number given to a phone, computer or router) from which the requests originated, such as withdrawal or payment billet, for example.
“When you make such a specific complaint, you are not asking to expose anyone’s banking secrecy. He is simply asking for transparency in order to demonstrate how and by whom and at what time it was drawn. Anyone who is legitimate to request this is the account holder. This excuse that “I can’t open the secrecy” doesn’t make any sense. It cannot only be opened by third parties, but for the obvious holder it can be opened ”, stresses the specialist, who emphasizes that the client should not be harmed.
In a note, Caixa informed that customers can file a dispute request at any time at the branches and that they must detail as much as possible the facts under suspicion, such as registration dates, personal data, in addition to other subsidies that are requested at the time of opening of the dispute.
If not, the client may request a reanalysis of the dispute at any agency, providing additional information.