Ministers who voted for non -compensation understood that the discount on retirement was considered a ‘mere disappearance’; Victim filed the court for not recognizing his signing on loan
The Superior Court of Justice () made a controversial decision by claiming that a bank is not responsible for indemnifying an elderly client due to moral damages, even after confirming a fraud in a payroll loan. The Third Panel of the Court decided on the case, resulting in three votes in favor of the financial institution and two in opposition. The ministers who voted for non -indemnity understood that the discount on the retirement of the elderly was considered a “mere disagreement”, thus not configuring a moral damage.
Minister Antonio Carlos Ferreira, who aligned himself with the majority, stressed that the lack of “aggravating circumstance” in the situation of the elderly does not justify the reparation for moral damages. The elderly woman had stated that she had not signed the contract related to the loan, and an expert confirmed the occurrence of the fraud. Although the São Paulo Court of Justice has determined the return of discounted amounts, the claim for compensation for moral damages was denied, a decision that was ratified by the STJ.
The process begins after the elderly woman triggers the court for not recognizing her signature in a loan agreement presented at Banco Itau. The expert confirmed the fraud and the São Paulo Court of Justice determined the reparation of material damage.
The rapporteur of the case, Minister Nancy Andrighi, had suggested compensation in the amount of $ 10,000, arguing that the improper discount represented a violation of the vulnerability of the elderly and an affront to fundamental rights. However, most ministers did not accept this proposal, maintaining the position that the situation did not fit the criteria for granting moral damages.
*Report produced with the aid of AI
Posted by Fernando Dias
