Changchun citizens Du business management business for many years, to facilitate financial transactions, she worked in a bank for a debit card. March 4 last year, more than 5 pm, she suddenly received four SMS, suggesting that the card in the form of off-site consumption four times a total of out of RMB 350,600 yuan.
Feeling the card was someone else brush, so she immediately called the police. 17:22 the same day, she rushed to the nearest police station reported that at the same time the phone reported loss. At this point, the bank's business outlets have to get off work, she can only work in the next day to the bank's first time to report the loss of procedures. However, these efforts did not make the recovery of the bank, the bank reply, the debit card spending address in Beijing Daxing District, Ms. Du and the bank repeatedly decided to prosecute, the Court of First Instance ruling Ms. Du lost.
The bank argued that there was no breach of contract
In January this year, Ms. Du and Changchun City Intermediate People's Court to appeal, she believes that money deposited in the bank, the bank has the obligation to ensure that the customer's deposit security, the request ordered the bank to compensate its deposit loss of 350,600 yuan and interest.
Bank argued that the authenticity of the debit card and the password is the only certainty of the transaction is essential to the two links, and password only Ms. Du know, can not rule out Ms. Du to allow others to use the savings card consumption, Ms. Du's own legal behavior, the bank does not exist the issue of default, and Ms. Du prosecution time has been more than 180 days, leading to the bank can not be transferred from the relevant units of the original documents and video.
The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the four transactions for the real card transactions and password leakage responsibility by whom the problem: the transaction occurred in Beijing, and Ms. Du was located far away, and 7 minutes after the transaction Ms. Du himself In the Changchun alarm, alarm receipt on a complete record of the bank card number. The next day, Ms. Du in the bank to work the first time the bank card reported loss.
The court of second instance found that the bank lost
In summary, the judge that Ms. Du's evidence is sufficient to form a major challenge to the real card transactions. And the bank claims that Ms. Du prosecution over the "bank card cross-line business error handling Interim Measures" provides the error handling period of 180 days, it can not prove that the transaction is what the person.
According to the investigation, the Department of China UnionPay on its member institutions within the provisions of the litigation stage can not provide the basis for the corresponding evidence. And the second day to the bank to explain the situation the next day, the bank should be transferred to the business through CUP and save the relevant evidence, and the bank failed to provide any evidence. The court found that Ms. Du holds a real card, and four transactions in Beijing are fake cards.
In the event of a fake card transaction, the bank should be determined that the bank to the real creditor other than the liquidation of the creditor's rights, can not happen to the real creditor's corresponding creditor's rights to the consequences of the elimination, that is, Ms. Du still have the right to ask the bank to pay off the debt. Bank card password and card information by the suspect to steal, may be due to the cardholder did not fulfill the obligation to ensure that the deposit, it may be due to the issuer did not fulfill the security obligations. Such as the bank can prove that Ms. Du on the password leaked fault, then the corresponding exemption from the bank's liability, but the bank did not prove that Ms. Du fault.
Changchun Intermediate People 's Court of second instance verdict: the bank to pay appellant Ms. Du 350,000 yuan and the corresponding deposit interest. The judgment is the final judgment and the judgment takes effect on that day.