The court denied a Kyiv resident the right to secure a lawsuit against Monobank in a fraud case for 479 thousand hryvnias.
The court denied a Kyiv resident the right to secure a lawsuit against Monobank in a fraud case for 479 thousand hryvnias.
The Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv rejected the application of a victim of telephone scams to prohibit Monobank from charging interest and penalties on a loan issued by the criminals. The court found the application unfounded and saw no risks of difficulty in implementing the future decision.
On October 10, 2025, a Kyiv resident received a call from the «official number» of PrivatBank (+380567976010). The attacker introduced himself as a bank employee and reported suspicious attempts to make online payments on Rozetka on the night of October 9-10.
The fraudster used a classic «funds protection» scheme: he claimed that information had been leaked from a bank manager and that the money needed to be urgently transferred to «safe accounts.» To make it more convincing, the attacker mentioned that the cyber police were on the phone.
Under stress, the woman created a «white card» in Monobank and transferred her own funds from PrivatBank to it in the amounts of 20,000 and 25,000 hryvnias. At the same time, the victim did not provide the card details, expiration date, or CVV code.
During a conversation with a pseudo-banker, the scammers conducted a large-scale withdrawal operation:
Total losses amounted to 478,940.55 hryvnias.
On October 11, the victim contacted the Pechersk Police Department of Kyiv, and the next day criminal proceedings were initiated under Part 4 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (fraud on an especially large scale).
On October 20, the woman asked Monobank to stop accruing interest on a loan agreement concluded by the fraudsters, sending an extract from the ERDR. The bank responded via Telegram and offered only restructuring on condition of making an initial payment of 29,200 hryvnias.
On November 10, Monobank debited 12,133.33 hryvnias from the victim’s account. When asked for an explanation, bank employees stated: «You were issued an installment plan by fraudsters, but it belongs to your account and must be paid. This is a debt to the bank.»
As of the time of the court appeal, the debt due to fraudulent actions and accruals reached 279,066.67 hryvnias.
The victim, through her representative, lawyer Oleksandr Voltornyst, applied to the Podilskyi District Court with a request to secure the lawsuit before it is filed. She requested that Monobank be prohibited from charging penalties, interest, and other payments until the completion of the criminal proceedings.
On December 19, 2025, Judge Dmytro Petrov rejected the application. The decision stated that the applicant had not proven the existence of a real threat of non-enforcement of the future court decision.
The court referred to the clarifications of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, according to which «the mere reference in the application to the potential possibility of the defendants committing unfair acts without providing appropriate justification and providing evidence does not indicate the need to take appropriate measures.»
The decision can be appealed to the Kyiv Court of Appeal within 15 days.
The case described illustrates a typical caller ID spoofing phone scam scheme. The attackers gain access to the victim’s banking applications, likely through malware or phishing attacks.
A key element of the scheme is to create a sense of urgency and use formal communication channels to build trust. This raises the question of banks’ liability for transactions carried out during active fraud, especially when it comes to processing loans without the customer’s knowledge.
The case will continue on the merits after the main claim is filed.
