A company in the aesthetics sector in the Federal District had its account blocked by Nubank on January 3, 2024, with a total of R$ 2 million withheld in just 14 minutes. The block occurred after the bank detected alleged atypical movements, but the amount was refunded only four months later by court decision.
Initially, Nubank notified the company at 6:12 p.m., informing the account cancellation due to indications of irregularities. However, shortly after, at 6:25 p.m., new suspicious transactions were identified. Consequently, the block was effected at 6:26 p.m., worsening the company’s financial situation. The blocked amount originated from a tax refund received via Banco do Brasil, which made the measure even more controversial.
According to Judge Márcia Alves Martins Lôbo, responsible for the case, Nubank did not present concrete evidence justifying the pointed irregularities. Furthermore, the institution did not notify the Federal Revenue Service about the block, contrary to expected practices in the financial system. Brazilian legislation stipulates that preventive blocks in similar situations should generally last a maximum of 72 hours for the proper clarifications to be made.
Nubank claimed that the block was the result of an automatic system that identified movements incompatible with the client’s profile. However, the case highlighted the absence of clear communication and documentary support from the fintech, which generated complaints and legal questions about the legality of the action.
The Central Bank and Law No. 9,613/1998 regulate the prevention of money laundering, requiring financial institutions to monitor atypical financial movements and report to competent authorities, such as the Financial Activities Control Council (Coaf). Still, Nubank was condemned in a previous episode to restore a blocked account and pay R$ 3,000 in moral damages for similar situations.
Furthermore, Brazilian rules require banks to inform their clients at least 30 days in advance before canceling a banking contract. However, in the case of the block in January 2024, the communication was abrupt, without sufficient time for the client to present a defense or justification.
Consumer law specialists state that blocks carried out without clear explanation or adequate legal basis are considered abusive by the Brazilian courts. Thus, affected clients should seek clarification from institutions and file formal claims when there are no justifications for the block.
Brazil is one of the largest fintech markets in the world, which intensifies disputes related to the use of automatic systems for account blocking. Recent court decisions have reinforced the importance of balancing financial system security with consumer rights, highlighting the need for transparency and efficient communication.
Finally, what became known as the regulation hexagon encompasses aspects such as transparency, adequate communication, defined timeframe, and legal basis for adopting preventive blocks. The conclusion of the process still depends on the analysis of the practices adopted by Nubank, which must respond regarding the regularity of the measure and comply with established judicial determinations.
