Bank card misused after a night out: who pays the costs in the event of a dispute?

A night out abroad ends in a financial nightmare: you have no memory of the evening, suspect that you have been drugged, and discover that your account has been emptied. Will you get your money back from the bank? A ruling by the Justice of the Peace in Vorst on 10 December 2024 shows that this is not a black-and-white story. When both the bank and the customer are at fault, the judge may decide on shared liability, whereby the financial damage is divided.

The facts: an unclear night in Valencia

The case revolves around Mr. P., who was the victim of alleged misuse of his bank card during a stay in Valencia (Spain). The events took place in an establishment described by consumers as a discotheque, but by the bank as a brothel.

After an initial, undisputed payment of €100, two large transactions of €991 and €993 followed in quick succession, followed by a declined attempt of €994. The consumer claimed that he had been drugged and could not remember anything. He only blocked his card after seeing the debits and did not report the incident to the police until he returned to Belgium. The bank (Beobank) refused any refund, arguing that the transactions had been authorized or that there had at least been gross negligence.

A crucial detail in this case was the identity of the recipient. The account statements only contained the vague statement “COM SU VALENCIA ESP,” which made it unclear who had received the payments..

The decision: shared responsibility

In his ruling of December 10, 2024, the Justice of the Peace in Vorst reached a nuanced verdict. It was decided that both parties had failed to fulfill their obligations:

1. The bank's fault: The bank has an obligation to fully identify the beneficiary of a payment. The vague description on the statement was not sufficient. Even after the intervention of the Court of Justice of the EU (via a preliminary question in this case – Case C-351/21) the bank was unable to identify a clear natural or legal person.
2. The consumer's mistake: The judge ruled that the consumer had committed gross negligence. The fact that he did not immediately file a complaint with the police after losing his wallet and suffering memory loss weighed heavily in the decision. An immediate complaint could have helped to objectify the facts.

The ruling resulted in shared liability: the bank was ordered to repay one of the disputed transactions (€991), but the consumer had to bear the cost of the other transaction (€993) and his further damages himself.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling offers interesting insights into the application of Book VII of the Code of Economic Law (CEL) and the relationship between bank and client in terms of unauthorized payment transactions.

1. The bank's obligation to identify customers (Art. VII.18 CEL)

The core of the decision against the bank is based on a strict interpretation of the duty to provide information. In these proceedings, the Court of Justice confirmed that a bank must provide information that reveals the identity of the beneficiary, and not just the technical reference of the payment terminal. This is essential for the distribution of the burden of proof: if the customer does not know who has the money, it is impossible for them to prove that it is, for example, a fraudulent trader.

2. Gross negligence on the part of the payer (Art. VII.44 CEL)

Normally, consumers are liable for all damages if they have been grossly negligent. Gross negligence is assessed on a case-by-case basis, but is always measured against the standard of a “normally careful payer.” In this case, the court did not find gross negligence so much because of the visit to the establishment itself, but rather because of the lack of an adequate response afterwards (late reporting). This confirms that the cardholder's duty of care continues after the incident.

3. Authorizing the payment

An important legal point of contention is when a payment is “authorized.” Banks often argue that entering the PIN code (technical validation) is equivalent to consent. However, certain case law, including this judgment, states that consent must be viewed subjectively: did the customer want to make this specific payment to this specific recipient? In cases of intoxication or fraud, technical validation (PIN code) may be correct, but there is no consent, which means that the transaction is legally considered “unauthorized”.

What this specifically means for you

This judgement has direct consequences for victims of card fraud:

• For the victim: Speed is crucial. If you notice any loss, theft, or unusual transactions, block your card immediately (via Card Stop or the app) and report it to the local police right away, even if you are abroad. Waiting until you get home could be considered gross negligence by a judge, which would result in you losing your right to a refund.
• In case of dispute: Demand full transparency from your bank about the counterparty. If the bank only provides a vague code (such as “COM SU VALENCIA”), it is in breach of its legal obligation. This can be a strong argument in legal proceedings to recover (part of) your money, even if you yourself were careless.
• Burden of proof: As a consumer, you do not have to prove conclusively that you did not give your consent (a negative fact is difficult to prove). However, you do have to make it plausible. A consistent story and an immediate complaint will help in this regard.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Is drunkenness or being drugged automatically considered ‘gross negligence’?
No, not automatically. The judge will consider all circumstances. However, if your condition prevents you from taking prompt action (such as blocking or reporting the incident) after the incident, this may be considered gross negligence.

What if the bank cannot say who received my money?
The bank has a performance obligation to disclose the identity of the beneficiary. If it fails to do so, it fails to meet its contractual and legal obligations. This may work in your favor when it comes to apportioning liability, as in the Vorst judgement.

Will I never get anything back in cases of ‘gross negligence’?
In principle, you are liable for the damage yourself. However, this recent judgement shows that if the bank also makes serious mistakes (such as failing to identify the recipient), the court may decide on shared liability, which means you may still be able to recover part of the amount.

Conclusion

The judgement by the Justice of the Peace in Vorst is an important warning: as a cardholder, you are expected to respond immediately and appropriately in the event of loss or theft, even abroad. If you fail to do so, you risk being labeled as “grossly negligent.” At the same time, the bank is being sternly reminded of its duty to be transparent about who receives your money.