The bank received from a company through the online system an application for a loan and several payment orders. The bank disbursed the money and made the payments. The LLC then claimed that it had not asked for a loan nor transfers of the funds to individuals’ accounts at another credit institution. Later. the bank decided to collect the loan debt from the company, but it was refused by the courts of all three levels. The Supreme Court did not agree with them. Petrol Chilikov Associate Natalia Kotlenko spoke about the nuances of confirming authority which were important in this case:
According Kotlenko, in the ruling the court raises the issue of the appearance of authority on the part of the represented person in the context of electronic banking transactions. The expert notes that the risk of an unauthorised person signing a contract lies with the representee when he/she has contributed to the appearance of authority on the part of the pseudo-representative. “In fact, the Court extended this rule by its definition to cases where a contract is signed by means of an electronic signature,” Kotlenko says.
Read full article here.