Background
João Dionizio da Costa sought reimbursement and moral damages arising from successive PIX transfers made after he received a request through social media. The amount in controversy was R$32,550. The trial court dismissed the claims and ordered Costa to pay costs, expenses, and attorney fees equal to 10% of the amount in controversy, subject to his legal-aid status.
The São Paulo Court of Justice affirmed. Based on its assessment of the evidence, that court found that Costa himself had voluntarily and intentionally initiated the transfers, that the scheme was committed through social engineering outside the bank’s systems, and that the record did not prove timely notice that would have enabled the bank to block or recover the funds. It therefore found no security defect and treated the victim’s exclusive fault and a third party’s conduct as breaking the causal link. Costa petitioned the Superior Court of Justice, arguing that the appellate court had omitted important issues and that the bank was objectively liable for permitting allegedly atypical, successive transactions.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously considered the special appeal only in part and denied relief. It found no violation of Articles 489 or 1,022 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the São Paulo appellate court had addressed the issues essential to resolving the dispute clearly and adequately. A court need not respond individually to every argument when its reasoning sufficiently supports the result.
The STJ did not independently decide whether the transfers were atypical or whether the bank’s service was defective. It held that overturning the state court’s conclusions concerning an external fortuity, the victim’s exclusive fault, and the absence of a banking-service failure would require reexamining the evidentiary record, which STJ Precedent No. 7 prohibits in a special appeal.
That evidentiary bar also prevented review of Costa’s asserted conflict with other decisions and his reliance on STJ Precedent No. 479. Because factual reconsideration would be necessary to determine whether the cited cases were materially comparable, the court treated the claimed jurisprudential conflict as foreclosed. It also increased the previously awarded attorney-fee percentage by 5%, subject to statutory limits and any applicable legal-aid protection.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate decision does not deny judicial relief merely because it rejects a party’s position or does not answer every argument separately; it is sufficient to address the dispute’s essential issues with clear reasoning.
- STJ Precedent No. 7 bars a special appeal when reversal would require reassessing evidence underlying findings of external fortuity, exclusive victim fault, or absence of a banking-service defect.
- The decision does not establish a categorical rule exempting banks from liability for social-engineering or PIX fraud; it preserves the result reached on this record because the STJ could not revisit the state court’s factual findings.
Why It Matters
The ruling highlights the procedural importance of the factual record in Brazilian bank-fraud litigation. Arguments that a bank should have identified unusual PIX activity may not receive merits review in a special appeal if accepting them would require the STJ to redetermine what happened, whether notice was timely, or whether the bank’s security systems failed.
For practitioners, the case also distinguishes the potential substantive reach of objective bank liability from the limits governing STJ review. Even when a claimant invokes STJ Precedent No. 479 and decisions involving atypical transactions, those authorities cannot overcome Precedent No. 7 when factual reassessment is necessary.