Claims he spent 4,700 in strip club. Bill – 53K

credit card Strip Club Payment card dnbPayment cards. Photo:

Norwegian states that he spent NOK 4,700 at Danish strip club – the card was debited with NOK 53,000

The man rejects the enormous bill he woke up to the following morning. Neither the Bank nor the Finance Appeals Board believes him.


The trip took place in May 2017. A group of friends attended the strip club at midnight, and the man statees in his complaint that he immediately spent NOK 400 with his debit card, but then stopped.

This he told the Finance Appeals Board, which suppots the bank support and holds the man responsible for the payments in a statement dated December 2017.

In total, the card belonging to the man were used six times for a total of NOK 53,408 between 00.45 and 02.32. Between 02.47 and 03.03, another twelve attempts were made, but these were rejected firstly due to lack of funds and later because the card was blocked.

– An unauthorized person must have been able to see the pin code when he used the debit card just after he arrived at the nightclub, the complainant states. He suspects that someone has taken the card and returned it before leaving the place.VG has attempted to contact the strip club without getting any response.

Changed his explanation

The man’s bank, believes that he has most likely used the card himself or that someone has done so with his consent.

– It’s unlikely that unauthorized people should have managed to steal and keep the card for several hours and returned it before the cardholder left the place without the cardholder himself or some of his friends discovering it, the bank believes.

In addition, in his complaint to the bank, he acknowledged that he spent 4300 kroner on the debit card. The bank did not consider it credible that he acknowledged the transaction to accommodate the bank, as the man says.

Does not rule abuse out

The Finance Appeals Board does not exclude that the explanation is correct and that the card have been abused.

The majority believes that the explanation does not have such likelihood that the cardholder’s burden of proof is fulfilled. In such cases, the cardholder must prove that he or she has been cheated.

Thus, the cardholder is responsible for the transactions. A minority in the board wanted to reject the case due to uncertainties surrounding the course of events and a lack of basis for concluding.

– This is one of the types of issues we see most often, the chairman of the board, Trygve Bergsåker, has previously told VG.

He also pointed out that the rulings of the Supreme Court make the situation difficult for the bank customer.


© NTB Scanpix / Norway Today