plaintiff

The card was stolen and swiped 380 thousand.

On July 7, 2008, Zhongshan Guzhen Sub-branch of a bank limited by shares where Mr. Hu works handled a bank wealth management card (debit card) and opened the function of "Bank Unicom". From April, 20 10 to July, 201/0/,Mr. Hu authorized and used the bank card to handle payment and transfer business in the bank.

2011At around 22: 00 on July 22nd, Mr. Hu went home and found that the mobile phone message showed that at 20: 57 that night, this bank card was spent in Macau, equivalent to RMB 38 159 1.5 yuan. Withdrawals were made at the ATM in Zhuhai four times from 23: 4 1 to 44: 00 on the same day. *

Mr. Hu said that after discovering that the bank card was stolen, he immediately called the police and applied to the bank for loss reporting. The withdrawal occurred during his own reporting period.

After the incident, Mr. Hu went to the bank to print the transaction details and demanded compensation for the losses, but the bank never paid. Lawyer Hu believes that the defendant, as a commercial bank, has the obligation to ensure the safety of customers' funds. Because the defendant failed to fulfill the above obligations, the plaintiff's bank card was stolen and cashed out. Request the court to order the bank to compensate 39 148 1.9 yuan and interest losses.

bank

The cardholder did not properly protect personal information.

A bank of the defendant argued that the stolen bank card involved a criminal offence, and the loss was caused by a criminal act, so the plaintiff should recover it from the criminal; In addition, according to the bank debit card regulations and other relevant regulations, transactions conducted with passwords are regarded as my behavior. Since all the transactions involved in this case were completed after entering the correct password, the plaintiff should bear the consequences regardless of whether the criminals used fake cards or not.

The bank believes that Mr. Hu has repeatedly delivered the bank card and password to a third party for transfer and withdrawal business, resulting in the bank card information and password being known by many people. The plaintiff is not good at keeping debit cards and passwords, and should be fully responsible for the disclosure of bank card information and passwords.

More importantly, the bank thought that Mr. Hu had opened the "Yinxintong" service, but Mr. Hu did not take timely measures to report the loss after learning from the short message that the bank card was stolen in Macao, resulting in the withdrawal of 9886.4 yuan from the card in Zhuhai. The bank should not take any responsibility for the expansion of the loss of 9886.4 yuan.

After verification by the court, the alarm receipt provided by Guzhen police showed that Mr. Hu called the police at 0: 00 on July 23, 20 1 1, and the bank card transaction records showed that the plaintiff reported the loss on July 23, 20 1 1, and the criminals' inquiries, credit cards and cash withdrawals all occurred before Mr. Hu called the police.

court

Cardholder's bank

Take half the responsibility.

The Second People's Court of Zhongshan City held that the plaintiff opened a debit card with the defendant and the two parties established a savings contract relationship. In this case, the consumption and cash withdrawal involved were not made by Mr. Hu himself, nor by Shao Mouzhang holding his authorized bank card, but by the "clone card" used by Shao Mouzhang. As the issuing bank, the bank failed to correctly distinguish the real card from the fake card, accepted the consumer transaction with the illegally copied bank card, and withdrew the corresponding money from the plaintiff's account. In this regard, the defendant failed to fulfill the obligation of careful review and should be liable for breach of contract for his wrong behavior.

However, the cardholder shall bear the burden of proof for the fact that the password has been leaked. Mr. Hu failed to prove how his bank card password was known by others and should bear the legal consequences of failing to prove it. Moreover, the plaintiff handed over the bank card to a third person for use many times, so the court found that the plaintiff did not fulfill the responsibility of properly keeping the password, which led to the password being known by others and was also at fault for its own losses. In addition, the bank card involved in the case has opened SMS service, but the plaintiff failed to find out in time when obtaining the inquiry information of the card, and failed to take effective measures to prevent and avoid the loss from expanding immediately after discovery. Therefore, the plaintiff should bear the corresponding responsibility for the theft and withdrawal of funds in his bank card.

? In view of the negligence of both the bank and the cardholder in fulfilling their responsibilities, the court held that both parties should bear 50% of the losses. 39 148 1.9 yuan. The court then ordered a bank to compensate the plaintiff Hu Moufeng for the loss of deposit 195740.95 yuan and interest. After the case was pronounced in the first instance, the original defendant refused to accept the verdict and appealed. Recently, the Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court made a second-instance judgment after hearing the case according to law, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

The thief was sentenced to seven years in prison.

■ Link

After reporting the case to the police in Guzhen, Zhongshan City, Mr. Hu was put on file for investigation by the public security organs and transferred to the People's Procuratorate of the First Urban District of Zhongshan City for review and prosecution. The court found that the defendant Shao Mouzhang illegally obtained the duplicate card of Mr. Hu's bank card, and left the country for the Macao Special Administrative Region with an ordinary passport at 6: 00 on July 22nd, 201,and at 20: 29 on the same day, he took the duplicate card to the "Hong Kong Yintong" ATM to check the balance (excluding the inquiry fee of 4 yuan). Later, at 20: 57, he went to a jewelry store in Guangzhou Street, Macau, and cashed in HK$ 450,000 (the transaction amount is MOP 473,850, equivalent to RMB 3,865,438 +0.5965,438+0.5 yuan) with a bank card fictitious transaction. At about 1 1 that night, after entering the country from Gongbei Port, Shao Mouzhang took the duplicate bank card to the ATM of Liangfenqiao, Zhuhai Branch of a bank in Yuehai Middle Road, Zhuhai, for four times, totaling RMB 9,800 (excluding the handling fee of RMB 86.4).

On February 7, 20 12, Shao mouzhang was arrested by the public security organs and the money was not returned. On September 12, 1 1 day, the First People's Court of Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province made a criminal judgment, found Shao Mouzhang guilty of credit card fraud, sentenced him to seven years and six months' imprisonment and fined him 50,000 yuan.