The Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals denied the appeal filed by Banco Mercantil do Brasil against a ruling that recognized fraud in the contracting of payroll-deductible loans. The case involved a 67-year-old elderly consumer who fell victim to a scam carried out by a third party posing as an employee of the financial institution. The 4th Private Law Chamber upheld the first-instance ruling in full, which declared the contracts null and void and ordered the bank to pay compensation for material and moral damages.

The victim reported being contacted by phone by a person who identified herself as a bank employee and demonstrated detailed knowledge of the victim's pre-approved credit lines. The fraudster offered to refinance existing loans at reduced interest rates by taking out new personal credit agreements. Convinced that she was dealing with a legitimate representative of the institution, the consumer took out three loans totaling R$ 4,564.00 and made PIX transfers to a key linked to the domain "grupobrasilbank.com.br," later receiving a fraudulent proof of settlement.

The court based its ruling on the strict liability of financial institutions in fraud cases, as established in Precedent 479 of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). The judges determined that the fraud was made possible by a failure in the bank's security systems, which allowed the scammer access to the client's sensitive information. The court found this constituted an internal fortuitous event related to banking activity, and did not amount to exclusive fault on the part of a third party or the consumer herself — particularly given her condition as a hyper-vulnerable individual as an elderly person.

The ruling ordered the immediate suspension of payroll deductions, the declaration of nullity of the fraudulent contracts, restitution of the improperly deducted amounts, and the payment of R$ 5,000.00 in moral damages. The court noted that the consumer had acted in good faith, having sought to resolve the matter administratively before turning to the courts, and that the undue charges significantly impacted her monthly income of R$ 2,462.34, justifying the moral damages award.

This post was summarized from the original ruling using AI, with human review.

TJRJ/AC n. 0809680-07.2024.8.19.0203