The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), unanimously, in the judgment of Special Appeal No. 1,786.157 \/ SP, understood that in situations involving payment of allegedly fraudulent sale through bank slip, the issuing financial institution does not participate in the relationship of consumption that caused losses to an individual, and cannot be held responsible for such an event just for having issued the payment slip used for payment, nor is the alleged fraud practiced on the Internet characterized as a failure in the security duty of banking services.<\/p>\n
Understand the specific case: the consumer filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for material and moral damages against a financial institution, claiming that he would have been the victim of fraud, considering that when making purchases in a virtual store the products were not delivered. The sentence of provenance was reformed in the second degree, with the appeal being upheld on the grounds that payment was made by bank slip on an unknown website, thus, it was understood by the impossibility of taking responsibility for the financial institution that served only as receiver of the amount issued, due to the absence of a causal link between conduct and damage.<\/p>\n
The rapporteur, Minister Nancy Andrighi, clarified that \u201cin the case of the case, however, the applicant was a victim of alleged fraud, as he acquired a consumer good that he never received, nor would he receive if another were the means of payment employed, such as a credit card. credit or bank transfer \u201d, in this way, the reporting minister considered that the financial institution could not be considered a\u201c supplier \u201din this specific case, so that\u201c any failure in the provision of its banking service \u201dis not observed.<\/p>\n
In this sense, since the financial institution does not belong to the supply chain, it cannot be held responsible for products not received, nor would the alleged embezzlement constitute a failure in the duty of security, thus, the reporting rapporteur understood that extrapolating this reasoning is not supported by consumer protection legislation.<\/p>\n
By: Wilson Sales Belchior<\/p>\n