Ms. Du, a member of Changchun City, has been engaged in building materials business for many years. In order to facilitate financial transactions, she handled a debit card at a bank. At 5:00 pm on March 4 last year, she suddenly received four text messages, suggesting that the card was transferred out of RMB 356,600 in four separate forms.
Feeling that the card was stolen by others, she immediately called the police. At 17:22 on the same day, she rushed to the nearest police station to report the case, and at the same time reported the loss. At this point, the bank's business outlets have been off duty, she can only go to the branch office the next day to go to the branch office to handle the loss reporting procedures. However, these efforts did not cause the deposit to be recovered. The bank replied that the above-mentioned debit card consumption address was in Daxing District, Beijing. Ms. Du and the bank had repeatedly decided to sue and the court of first instance ruled that Ms. Du lost the case.
Bank argues that there is no default
In January of this year, Ms. Du appealed to the Intermediate People's Court of Changchun City. She believed that the money was deposited in the bank, and the bank was obliged to ensure the safety of the customer's deposit. The bank ordered the bank to compensate the bank for its loss of RMB 356,600 and interest.
The bank argues that the authenticity of the debit card and the unique certainty of the password are two essential parts of the transaction success. The password is only known to Ms. Du. It cannot be ruled out that Ms. Du will allow others to use the savings card. For the legal behavior of Ms. Du, there is no default in the bank, and Ms. Du’s indictment has been more than 180 days since the incident, resulting in the bank being unable to retrieve the original documents and videos from the relevant units.
The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the four transactions are true card transactions and who is responsible for the password leakage: the transaction took place in Beijing, which was far from the location of Ms. Du at the time, and Ms. Du herself was 7 minutes after the transaction occurred. In the Changchun alarm, the alarm card receipt completely records the bank card number. The next day, Ms. Du reported the loss of her bank card at the first time in the bank.
The court of second instance found the bank lost
In summary, the judge believes that Ms. Du’s evidence is sufficient to form a major challenge to the real card transaction. The bank claimed that because Ms. Du sued more than 180 days for handling the error transaction as stipulated in the Interim Measures for Interbank Business Error Handling, it is impossible to prove the transaction.
According to the investigation, this is the internal regulation of China UnionPay's member institutions, which cannot be used as the basis for the failure to provide corresponding evidence in the litigation stage. And Ms. Du went to the bank early in the morning to explain the situation. The bank should transfer and save relevant evidence to the merchant through UnionPay, and the bank failed to provide any evidence. The court found that Ms. Du held a real card and the four transactions in Beijing were pseudo-card transactions.
In the case of a counterfeit card transaction, it should be determined that the bank has cleared the creditor's right to someone other than the real creditor, and the legal consequences of the actual creditor's corresponding creditor's right cannot be eliminated. That is to say, Ms. Du still has the right to ask the bank to pay off the debt. The bank card password and the card information are stolen by the criminal suspect, either because the cardholder has not fulfilled the obligation of proper custody, or because the card issuing bank has not fulfilled the security obligation. If the bank can prove that Ms. Du is at fault with the password disclosure, she will be exempted from the bank’s liability, but the bank has not proved that Ms. Du is at fault.
The second instance judgment of Changchun Intermediate People's Court: The bank paid the appellant Ms. Du Ms. 560,600 and the corresponding deposit interest. The judgment is final and the judgment will take effect on the same day.