Itaú wrongly transfers R $ 1 million due to failure with PIX


A “systemic failure” of integration with the Central Bank’s new instant payment system led Itaú to double transfers to several banks and process them by default. According to the institution, the others would be aware of the situation that occurred in November 2020 with the PIX and, even so, they did not return an amount of R $ 966,392, in addition to allowing their customers to use the amount received improperly.

Disclosed by the CoinTelegraph website, documents from the lawsuit reveal that Banco do Brasil, Bradesco, Sicred, Bancoob, Nubank, Banco Original and Banco Inter are among those involved in the legal battle.

In addition, after discovering the problem, Itaú would have immediately contacted some account holders and instructed them to seek the recipients of the transactions to resolve, but not all were successful.

“The operational issue could be resolved if the defendants had not been silent, even though they were aware of the systemic error”, he claims.

“And the defendants, although aware of the systemic failure when the value was still under their interference, instead of returning the undue amount to the plaintiff, allowed the settlement of the credits in the accounts of the recipient account holders, preventing the chargeback and causing enrichment without cause in relation to which the return of values ​​is claimed now “, he adds.

Usual measure

In addition to the attempt to recover the amounts, if the chargeback is not possible due to insufficient funds in the beneficiary’s account, Itaú asks that all data of the affected customers be provided so that it can file a lawsuit against them and exercise “their legitimate right. (…) to recover the values ​​that actually belong to him. ”

Initially, the Court accepted the allegations and determined the blocking of the amounts in the accounts of the aforementioned banks, but Banco do Brasil managed to reverse the decision after a request at the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJ-SP). The entity stressed that the discussion is “in the patrimonial sphere of account holders.”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here