In case No. 638/441/25, the appellate court reviewed the dispute regarding the blocking of the client's accounts by the bank due to suspicious financial transactions, in particular checked whether it is lawful to terminate the service of a client who conducts cryptocurrency transactions in the absence of confirmation of their economic essence and the origin of funds.
The relevance of the case is due to the fact that the cryptocurrency market is developing faster than its legal regulation. In Ukraine, the rules for the circulation of crypto assets are still being formed, while banks are already required to apply strict financial monitoring mechanisms.
Due to the complexity of verifying the origin of funds and identifying the counterparties, crypto transactions automatically fall into the zone of increased risk, which forms new judicial practices in this area.
Circumstances of the case
The plaintiff approached the court with a request to compel the bank to lift restrictions on the accounts, compensate for material and moral damages, and refute the information stated in the bank's response.
He noted that he was conducting cryptocurrency exchange activities through relevant services, however, the bank blocked his accounts without explanations and restricted access to the remote service system.
The bank justified its actions by stating that the plaintiff's financial transactions have signs of suspiciousness, particularly due to the inconsistency of the counterparties' data and the presence of information about the transfer of funds within the framework of criminal proceedings regarding fraud. Moreover, the plaintiff could not confirm the compliance of the sender of the funds with the data on the cryptocurrency platform.
The first-instance court denied the claim, recognizing the bank's actions as lawful.
Position of the appellate court
The court noted that the plaintiff explained the receipt of funds solely through cryptocurrency exchange activities, but did not provide specific confirmations of the economic essence of the transactions, in particular did not justify the reasons for the transfer of funds from the victim in the criminal proceedings. It was established that the funds received in his account were a result of fraudulent actions by third parties, as confirmed by the materials of the pre-trial investigation.
The court also took into account that the bank, as a subject of primary financial monitoring, is obliged to apply a risk-based approach and has the right to establish an unacceptably high level of risk for a client if there are reasonable suspicions regarding financial transactions. In such cases, the bank has the right to refuse to maintain business relationships, including by terminating the contract and blocking accounts.
It is separately emphasized that the absence of the plaintiff's status as a suspect in the criminal proceedings does not refute the legitimacy of the temporary restriction of access to accounts if such actions comply with the requirements of the legislation on financial monitoring and are aimed at preventing abuses.
The combination of established circumstances, in particular the presence of complaints regarding the transfer of funds, the lack of confirmation of the connection of payments with cryptocurrency activities, and the inconsistency of the data of the transaction participants, indicates the legitimacy of the bank's actions.
Thus, the appellate court confirmed that the bank has the right to restrict the client's access to accounts and cease service in case of unacceptably high risk, even if the client's activities are formally related to cryptocurrency. The lack of proper confirmation of the origin of funds and transparency of transactions is a sufficient basis for applying financial monitoring measures.
