Civil Case (Rishon LeZion) 55080-06-22 Igor Levin v. Israel Discount Bank Ltd.

I have before me a lawsuit filed by a customer against a bank for blocking a bank account and canceling a credit card.

Factual Background and the Parties' Arguments

1. The plaintiff, born on January 5, 1931, immigrated to Israel in 2019 and does not speak the Hebrew language.
2. In 2019, the plaintiff opened a bank account with the defendant at the Ra'anana branch, and later the account was transferred to the Kfar Saba branch.
3. According to the statement of claim, on April 12, 2022, the plaintiff, accompanied by his grandson, Mr. Timothy Vishnevsky, also a new immigrant, arrived at the defendant's branch in order to receive a bank guarantee in the sum of ILS 10,000, but the defendant refused his request.

According to the plaintiff, at that time, the defendant informed him that he had decided to block his bank account and cancel the credit card in his possession.  The plaintiff asked to know the reason for this decision and demanded that it be revoked, but to no avail.

On May 13, 2022, the defendant agreed to give the plaintiff a debit card (debit card), which is different from the terms of the previous credit card he had.

4. Against this background, the plaintiff filed the claim before me on the grounds that the defendant blocked the bank account and canceled the credit card unlawfully, in violation of the Banking Law (Terms of Service), 5741-1981 (hereinafter: "the Banking (Terms of Service)" Law), and incidentally violating basic rights.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant's refusal to continue to provide him with banking services is unreasonable.  According to him, the burden of proving the reasonableness of the refusal to provide the customer with banking services is on the defendant, and weighty reasons are required to justify a decision to restrict activity in an account that already exists.

In light of the above, the plaintiff petitioned to instruct the defendant to refrain from blocking his bank account for any activity, and to issue him a new credit card of the same type that he had in his possession until April 12, 2022.  The plaintiff also petitioned to require the defendant to pay monetary compensation for mental anguish.

5. The defendant, on the other hand, claimed that the plaintiff's bank account was not blocked at all, but continued to operate as usual and that various actions were carried out by the plaintiff. According to him, only a warning sign was attached to the bank account for the purpose of supervision, after in meetings with the plaintiff, the defendant's representatives were under the impression that he was unable to communicate and understand that actions in his account were required and their nature.

The defendant confirms that he canceled the credit card that was in the plaintiff's possession.  The defendant explained that it became clear that there was difficulty in communicating with the plaintiff.  Together with the fact of the plaintiff's advanced age, there is a concern that he may be exploited by someone.  This conclusion obligated the defendant to exercise extreme caution and therefore canceled the credit card he had in his possession.