Ms. Du, a Changchun citizen, has been trading building materials for many years. In order to facilitate financial transactions, she handled a debit card at a bank. At 5:00 pm on March 4th last year, she suddenly received four short messages stating that the card was transferred to RMB 355,600 in four different forms in different places.
The card was stolen by someone else, so she immediately called the police. At 17:22 that day, she rushed to the nearest local police station and reported the loss. At this point, the bank's business outlets have been off work, she can only go to the branch office to report the loss at the first time the next day the bank to work. However, these efforts did not make the deposit lost and the bank replied that the above-mentioned debit card consumption address was in the Daxing District of Beijing. Ms. Du repeatedly failed to negotiate with the bank, and the first instance court ruled that Ms. Du lost.
Bank argues that there is no breach of contract
In January of this year, Ms. Du filed an appeal with the Intermediate People’s Court of Changchun City. She believes that money was deposited into the bank and that the bank is obliged to ensure the security of the customer's deposit. The bank’s request was ordered to compensate the bank for losses of 355,600 yuan and interest.
The bank argued that the authenticity of the debit card and the unique certainty of the password are two indispensable aspects of the transaction success. However, only Ms. Du knows the password, and she cannot be ruled out that Ms. Du has allowed others to use the savings card. For Ms. Du’s own legal behavior, the bank did not have a breach of contract. Ms. Du’s complaint was filed more than 180 days after the lawsuit was filed, resulting in the bank being unable to obtain original documents and videos from relevant units.
The focus of the dispute in this case was whether the four transactions were true card transactions and who would bear the responsibility for password leakage: The transaction occurred in Beijing, which was far away from the location of Ms. Du at that time, and Ms. Du herself was 7 minutes after the transaction. In Changchun, the police reported a complete bank card number. The next day, Ms. Du took the bank card to report the loss at the first time when she worked at the bank.
The second instance court found that the bank lost the case
In summary, the judge believes that Ms. Du’s evidence is sufficient to form a major challenge to the transaction of real cards. However, the bank’s claim that Ms. Du’s lawsuit exceeds the “Interim Measures for the Handling of Bank Card Interbank Business Mistakes” stipulates that the processing time for dealing with erroneous transactions is 180 days, so it cannot be proved that the transaction is done by whoever does it.
According to investigations, this is the internal stipulation of China UnionPay for its member institutions and cannot be used as the basis for the inability to provide corresponding evidence during the litigation phase. Ms. Du later went to the bank the next morning to explain the situation. The bank should obtain and save relevant evidence to the merchant through UnionPay, and the bank failed to provide any evidence. The court found Ms. Du to hold a real card and the four transactions in Beijing were pseudo-card transactions.
In the case of a pseudo-card transaction, the bank should be deemed to have settled the creditor's rights to someone other than the actual creditor, and the legal consequences of having the real creditor's corresponding creditor's rights lost cannot occur. That is to say Ms. Du still has the right to require the bank to pay off the debt. The bank card password and card information were stolen by the criminal suspect. This may be due to the cardholder’s failure to properly maintain the obligation, or it may be due to the card issuer failing to fulfill its security obligations. If the bank can prove Ms. Du's fault in the password disclosure, then the bank’s compensation liability will be exempted. However, the bank did not prove that Ms. Du was at fault.
The second instance verdict of Changchun Intermediate People's Court: The bank paid Ms Du, the appellant, 355,600 yuan and the corresponding deposit interest. This judgment is final and the judgment will be effective on the same day.