As a reflection of the growth of the electronic means of payment market and its increasingly "indispensable" presence in people's daily lives, the discussions involving the liability of Payment Institutions and Sub-accreditation Companies have reached the Judiciary; and with this arrival comes the challenge of explaining to Judges and Associate Judges what these activities consist of and making them understand their importance in the Brazilian payments scenario.
If we are dealing with an authorised Payment Institution, the argument tends to be better accepted; in view of the inclusion of the company in the Brazilian Payment System (SPB) and the possibility of proof of its operating authorisation by the Central Bank of Brazil.
Now, if we are dealing with an unauthorised Payment Institution or a Sub-accreditor, how to demonstrate to the Judiciary that its activity is legal and licit? How can we explain the existence and regularity of these operations which, although not members of the SPB, manage and provide custody for third-party funds?
The formula used by BTLaw has been very successful. It is with this formula that we have increasingly achieved favourable and fair decisions for our market. See below how we have been working on the issue:
