Biznes Fakty
A loan taken out by fraudsters. There is a judgment regarding repayment.
The court determined that a loan agreement forged by scammers utilizing the bank account holder’s information was null and void, as reported by „Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.” This ruling is not yet final.
As per „Dziennik Gazeta Prawna,” the individual, lured by an advertisement promising unusually high returns, established an account on a platform that supposedly enables investment in cryptocurrencies.
Shortly thereafter, he received a call from someone claiming to be a financial analyst who, while outlining a particular investment opportunity, requested his password and online banking credentials. „He quickly noticed an amount of PLN 71,000 in his account, followed by an additional PLN 18,000. He believed these were gains from cryptocurrency trading,” the publication stated.
At the request of the supposed analyst, he transferred the money to the platform. Soon after, the funds vanished from his account, routed to offshore accounts, according to the newspaper.
The publication highlights that law enforcement was unable to locate the culprits, leading to the closure of the investigation due to their inability to identify them. The bank sought repayment of the loan, and upon the account holder’s refusal, citing that he had been a victim of fraud, he initiated a lawsuit.
Read more: Data breach at Giant. Investigation in progress >>>
Court ruling
As reported by „DGP,” the court, in a non-final judgment, rejected the claims, determining that the plaintiff (the bank) had not established that the account holder had taken on the obligation.
The court recognized that the intention of a person engaging in a legal act, in accordance with Article 60 of the Civil Code, may be conveyed through any means, including electronically disclosing that intention. However, the evidence presented by the bank did not substantiate the assumption that the defendant had made the declaration of intent that resulted in the loan approval.
It further noted that the prior investigation confirmed the defendant was a victim of fraud. The dismissal of the case due to the lack of identification of the perpetrators affirms that a crime had indeed taken place. This, in turn, implies that the defendant did not obtain the loan, rendering the contract invalid.
