In the Urals, the "drop" who provided the scammers with the card could not prove to the court that he himself is a victim.

      In the Urals, a "drop" who provided a card to fraudsters could not prove to the court that he himself was a victim

      August 11, 2026 A resident of the Sverdlovsk region, who participated in a fraudulent scheme as a "drop" by providing his bank card to its organizers, could not prove in court that he himself was deceived.

      Earlier, in December of last year, by the decision of the Beloyarsky District Court, within the framework of a civil lawsuit, he was ordered to pay 300,000 rubles to the plaintiff, a local resident. The man decided to challenge the court ruling in a higher instance. In his appeal, he demanded a complete annulment of the decision, stating that he himself was a victim of fraud, reports the unified press service of the Sverdlovsk region courts. According to the defendant's explanations, an unknown "broker" forced him to register on a crypto platform for operations with USDT (a cryptocurrency whose token price is always approximately equal to one US dollar - note from Uralweb.ru).

      Under the dictation of the fraudster, the defendant deposited his own funds, after which transfers from third parties began to arrive in his account, which he was obliged to immediately redirect to the specified details while demonstrating the screen of his phone. Among the transit payments was the amount from the affected woman.

      All this time he thought he was trading on a cryptocurrency exchange. When the balance reached the equivalent of 15,000 USDT, access to his personal account was blocked.

      He confirmed his role as an intermediary ("drop") with testimony during the investigation, adding that he did not record the senders' data, and the bank card used is currently blocked.

      The plaintiff (who is also the victim in the criminal case initiated in the spring of 2023 under part 4 of article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - "Fraud on a particularly large scale") also transferred the specified amount, 300,000 rubles, to the defendant's bank account under the influence of fraudsters who convinced her of the prospects of investment activities.

      In the civil lawsuit filed by her in the Beloyarsky District Court, the plaintiff demanded that the participant in the crypto chain not only return 300,000 but also pay interest in the amount of 128,979 rubles for the use of someone else's money. In the latter demand, the court of first instance denied her.

      The appellate court rejected the defendant's arguments that he acted under pressure from fraudsters and is also a victim in the criminal case. The decision of the court of first instance was left unchanged, and the defendant's appeal was denied.

      The judicial panel stated: the fact that the defendant acted under pressure from fraudsters and is also a victim in the criminal case does not exempt him from material liability to the citizen who suffered direct damage.