Belarusian woman lost almost 70,000 rubles in an online casino in two days and is now trying to get them back from the bank

Currently, Diana is trying to figure out whether the bank should have paid attention to such a large number of payments and whether the lost money can be returned, writes Onliner.by.

— Everything happened in April, from the 18th to the 20th. I decided to play an online lottery, — the girl recounts. — In general, I've been playing since about 2019-2020, but before that, it was always small amounts — hypothetically, 100 rubles at a time. Sometimes I won something, sometimes I lost, but I never lost as much money as I did on those days.

Shortly before this, a rather large sum appeared in our family — about 70,000 rubles. I don't want to go into detail about exactly where this money came from, so that I cannot be identified by certain details. Let's just say the family had to sell something, so this money appeared quite unexpectedly.

According to the girl, the money was not some free funds that could be spent casually; the family had plans for this amount, including needing to solve a housing issue.

— So, over these two days, I lost almost all 70,000 rubles — approximately half on the first day and half on the second.

According to the girl, she transferred money to the online lottery account via ERIP. The 70,000 did not leave in one large payment: the balance was topped up again and again as she played. In total, about 200 such operations accumulated over two days.

— Did you not set any limit for yourself: hypothetically, if I lose 1000 rubles — that's enough?

— It turned out that whatever money I had, that's what I bet. In total, as far as I remember, about 200 transactions took place. Of course, to a certain extent, I understood that the money was being lost. That's mostly what happened: a loss, then another top-up, then another game. Why didn't I stop? I still can't answer that question properly. I just sat there and kept topping up the balance until, in the end, almost nothing was left in the account.

"At the same time, I believe that certain protection mechanisms should have also been triggered by the bank. I didn't receive any SMS, there were no warnings about the account balance. I think the bank could have at least preventatively blocked the card and found out if I was actually conducting all these operations. Especially since we're talking about 200 transactions in two days. It seems to me that this should have raised questions," the girl states.

"The bank contacted me only when the account was empty. As far as I understood, they were interested in the origin of the money: where this sum came from and how legal it was. But why did they decide to check the origin of the money when there was none left?" she adds.

The girl says that if SMS or push notifications had arrived, she would have at least constantly seen how the money was leaving and how much remained in the account.

"Perhaps that would have helped me stop. But back then, I just kept playing and didn't properly perceive how quickly the balance was decreasing," she says.

After what happened, Diana started writing to various authorities, trying to understand if such a number of operations could have been stopped and if there was a possibility to return at least some of the money.

First, she contacted MTBank directly, but they disagreed with her claims.

According to MTBank's response, on April 18 at 17:44 [the first day of the game], a bank employee contacted the girl to clarify information about the operations being conducted, not after she had lost all the money.

"During the analysis of the phone conversation, it was established that the responsible bank employee informed you that a large number of operations were recorded on the card, after which he requested information about the origin of the funds. < …> You confirmed that the payment operations were initiated by you.

Please note that after this phone conversation, you continued to perform payment operations via AIS "Raschet" (ERIP). Given the above, no violations by the responsible bank employee have been established. 

< …>

For the period from July 14, 2023, to May 22, 2024, you increased your transaction limits. Thus, the following transaction limits were set: cashless transactions per day in devices in the Republic of Belarus — 550,000 Belarusian rubles, cashless transactions per week in devices in the Republic of Belarus — 45,000 Belarusian rubles. It should be noted that after the specified period, no changes to the limits were made.

The amount of cashless transactions per week in devices in the Republic of Belarus for the period from 13.04.2026 to 19.04.2026 amounted to 42,834.72 Belarusian rubles, and for the period from 20.04.2026 to 26.04.2026 amounted to 23,696 Belarusian rubles. Thus, since there was no exceeding of the limit for cashless transactions per week in devices in the Republic of Belarus, the operations were carried out correctly.

"Considering the above, no violations by the bank in this situation have been established. At the same time, the bank has no grounds to satisfy your request," the bank's response states.

Diana did not stop there and contacted the National Bank. They requested information from MTBank and also found no violations in its actions.

Journalists asked the girl why she continued to play even after receiving a call from a bank employee. Why didn't that stop her?

— Yes, I continued. On April 18, I lost 36,650 rubles, and the security service employee called only when the account was empty. Since the bank checked the origin of the money, did not block the card, and said nothing about operations to the online lottery, I decided that everything was fine.

— The next day, April 19, another 32,140 rubles were credited to the account, and I again started transferring this money to the online lottery. But this time, no one from the bank called at all. I believe that a new large deposit should have again raised questions for the bank. There are KYC rules, the "Know Your Customer" principle, financial monitoring. In my opinion, the bank should have paid attention to the fact that a large sum was again deposited into the account and it immediately began to disappear with many operations. That's why I believe there were oversights on the bank's part as well.

— So, the call didn't stop you from playing, but an SMS with a code or balance information could have?

— When they call you and ask: "Do you confirm that the money has arrived and you are using the card?" — a stressed brain perceives this as "Everything is fine, the bank approves, the system sees me, I'm safe." The live voice of an employee who politely said "Thank you for the confirmation, all the best" and didn't mention any threat acted like a green light. In my feelings, it legalized what was happening in my head.

— With SMS, I think the situation could have been different. When you're playing, at some point, you start performing all actions almost automatically: topped up the account, placed a bet, topped up again. But if each operation had to be separately confirmed with a code, I would have had to distract myself from the game every time, open the message, see the amount debited and the balance on the card, and then return and enter the code.

There were about 200 such operations, meaning I would have seen again and again in real numbers how much money was being debited and how the balance was decreasing. Perhaps at some point, this would have forced me to stop and realize how much had already been lost.

— Back then, there was no such technical barrier. I remained in the game and continued to top up the account. So that call didn't sober me up, but constant confirmations of operations, it seems to me, could have completely done so.

Diana contacted several lawyers and public assistants, but so far, no one is particularly eager to take on her case. She is looking for a lawyer and says that if the case goes to court, she will fight for the entire amount.

"I believe that certain mechanisms on the bank's part did not work, and the security service should have at least paid attention to such a large number of operations in a very short time. I am not absolving myself of responsibility. I played myself and made these payments myself, but I still believe that with approximately 200 transactions and such an amount, the bank should have at least stopped the operations, contacted me, and found out if I understood what was happening," she says.

Onliner.by contacted lawyer Tatiana Ravinskaya with a request to comment on Diana's situation.

"In my opinion, in the situation under consideration, the bank fulfilled its primary duty to protect funds: it suspected atypical activity and made a warning call to the client, as evidenced by the bank's response. But as soon as a legally capable and adult citizen personally confirms that they are making the transfers, the bank has no right to withhold the funds and is obliged to execute the lawful order of the money's owner," says the lawyer.

• 0
• 0
• 4
• 16
• 0
• 1
• 0
• 0