China court network news Wang Xia forcibly seized other people's vehicles to collect debts, but as a result, the debts were not recovered and he lost money. A few days ago, the People's Court of Guoyang County, Anhui Province sentenced the defendant Wang Xia to return the detained truck to the plaintiff Wang Qiang and compensate the plaintiff for the economic loss of 3,600 yuan.
On the afternoon of July 2 1, Wang Xia took people to the construction site to find Wang Qiang, who was pulling bricks, and asked him for arrears. Wang Qiang said that he had no money at hand now, and asked for a few more days' grace. In order to make Wang Qiang take the initiative to pay back the money, Wang Xia forcibly seized the Beijing JB23 10P8 freight car used by Wang Qiang for operation. Wang Qiang has repeatedly made representations and asked Wang Xia to return the vehicle, but Wang Xia refused to return it. Wang Qiang was helpless, so he took Wang Xia to court.
The court held that citizens' legitimate property was protected by law, and the defendant Wang Xia had no legal basis for detaining the trucks used by the plaintiff for operation, thus infringing the plaintiff's legitimate property rights. The infringement should be stopped immediately and the detained truck should be returned. If the defendant's tort causes losses to the plaintiff, the defendant shall make compensation as appropriate. (Everyone in the text is a pseudonym)
The unfilial eldest son missed the inheritance, and the widowed daughter-in-law inherited it all.
China Court Network News101On October 24, the People's Court of Shuyang County, Jiangxi Province tried an inheritance dispute case, and the biological eldest son of the old man missed the inheritance right because he failed to fulfill his maintenance obligations; Jiang Liping, the widowed daughter-in-law, received 65,438+3,000 yuan from the old man's entire inheritance because of her careful service to the old man.
Zhou, an old man, gave birth to two sons. The second son, Xia Zhiliang, married Jiang Liping and gave birth to a boy. Soon, Xia Zhiliang died in an engineering accident. The eldest son, Xia Zhiming, went to a neighboring village to get married and worked outside for a long time. He never asked his birth mother. In September 2002, the old man was in bed due to illness. Jiang Liping has always regarded the old man as his mother, but Xia Zhiming didn't even look at him.
In March this year, Zhou died of illness, leaving a deposit of 1.3 million yuan. Xia Zhiming rushed home from other places after learning about it, and forcibly took Zhou's deposit and drove him away from home. Helpless, Jiang Liping appealed to court.
After trial, the court made the above judgment. After the verdict was pronounced, both sides pleaded guilty.
Case Study: Liability Analysis of Debit Card Deposit Stolen
Banks should be liable for compensation.
Case playback
On June 5438+ 10, 2003, Mr. Tang applied for a Jinsui debit card in a branch of Agricultural Bank of China. In August 2004, Mr. Tang was told that there was only 98.90 yuan left in the card, and 360,000 yuan in the card had been transferred. After investigation by the Public Security Bureau, someone forged Mr. Tang's identity card, applied for a Jinsui debit card in Mr. Tang's name, and then stole Mr. Tang's deposit by using the bank's telephone transfer business, and took it out from five outlets in five times on the same day. The case has not been solved.
Mr. Tang believes that the bank should be responsible for this matter when he has not handled the telephone transfer business and ID card, the Jinsui debit card has not been lost, and the password has not been leaked. In the negotiation with the bank, the bank also thinks that it has no responsibility and refuses to pay compensation.
Li Gang (Member of Banking Law Committee of Beijing Lawyers Association, lawyer of Beijing Zhuguang Law Firm)
Mr. Tang applied for a Jinsui debit card in a branch of Agricultural Bank of China, so a legal savings contract relationship was established between Mr. Tang and the bank. In this kind of civil legal relationship, the bank has the obligation to protect Mr. Tang's deposit safety, that is, the bank has the obligation to strictly examine all relevant documents and passwords related to Mr. Tang's bank transactions.
Mr. Tang's ID card and Jinsui debit card were not lost, his password was not leaked, he did not apply for another Jinsui debit card, and he did not handle telephone transfer business. In this case, the original deposit in the card is transferred and withdrawn. Banks should have an unshirkable responsibility for this.
As a savings institution, the bank staff should be highly vigilant, carefully examine the customer's identity documents, and distinguish the authenticity of the customer's identity documents, so as to protect the depositors' deposit safety. It is precisely because of the bank's neglect of management and lax examination by relevant staff that the criminal suspect has the opportunity to successfully apply for another Jinsui debit card in the name of Mr. Tang by using Mr. Tang's forged ID card, and then transfer the deposit in Mr. Tang's Jinsui debit card through telephone transfer business.
The suspect successfully handled another Jinsui debit card in the name of Mr. Tang, which is only a key point in the whole incident. Another key point is the password of Mr. Tang Jinsui's debit card. According to the relevant regulations of the Agricultural Bank of China, the telephone transfer business is applicable to two bank cards in the same city of the Agricultural Bank of China, and the password of the transfer-out card must be provided before the transfer can be successful. In other words, if you want to transfer the deposit from Mr. Tang's Jinsui debit card by telephone, you must provide Mr. Tang's password. Therefore, the suspect knows Mr. Tang's password. As for how the suspect got Mr. Tang's password, no one knows for the time being. If the bank defends that "Mr. Tang leaked the password himself", it must provide the exact evidence that Mr. Tang leaked the password himself. If the bank can't provide evidence to prove that Mr. Tang leaked the password himself, it can't shirk its responsibility.
Wang Lianggang (Beijing Ren Jing Law Firm)
After fully studying the bank's debit card regulations, it can be expected that the bank will definitely regard the debit card regulations as "all transactions with password matching are regarded as the cardholder's own behavior" and "all debit card transactions with password matching are regarded as legal transactions". The loss of funds caused by the loss of password shall be borne by the cardholder himself. In similar cases in reality, banks also take this as the main defense reason and become a sharp weapon to cause cardholders' losses. But lawyers believe that this defense is untenable.
First of all, in debit card withdrawal (cash withdrawal and transfer) transactions, the password is not the only voucher. A debit card is not only a password, but also a voucher, and an ID card is also a voucher when making a large withdrawal. Only password matching is an important element of legal transaction, which will inevitably make the withdrawal transaction without card and license legal and greatly reduce the security of deposits.
Secondly, there may be three ways for password leakage: first, the cardholder leaks; Second, the bank leaks; Third, someone else broke the news. Since there are many ways to leak secrets, banks are undoubtedly exempting themselves from their responsibilities by the "overlord clause" without arbitrarily stipulating that "the losses shall be borne by the cardholders themselves".
Moreover, the stipulation that "all transactions using the same password are regarded as the cardholder's own behavior" makes banks fail to improve and strengthen the security of debit cards in terms of technology and process, fail to distinguish the authenticity of identity cards, and fail to fulfill their obligations to minimize or even eliminate the forgery and fraudulent use of debit cards, so that the security of debit cards cannot be guaranteed.
In addition to the above refutation of the bank's defense, lawyers believe that it is also very important to clarify the following two points:
First of all, the criminal part of such cases is usually characterized as credit card fraud. Because the cardholder's deposit is under the actual control of the bank, the object of the crime is the debit card ("debit card charter" and "debit card ownership bank" are clearly defined in the debit card respectively), and the main object of the crime is not the cardholder's property ownership, but the financial ticket management system and the bank's property ownership. Therefore, banks should not pass on the losses caused by other people's criminal acts to cardholders.
Second, the cardholder is a consumer who accepts banking financial services, and the Civil Part of such cases can be governed by the Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests.
Based on the above reasons, the interpretation of the debit card charter and the facts of this case, the bank has the following faults in this case:
1. The bank did not specify the telephone transfer function of the debit card in the debit card charter and application form, which violated the cardholder's right to know;
2. The bank set up a telephone transfer service for the cardholder, which violated the cardholder's right to choose the service;
3. The telephone transfer service set up by the bank enables the card-free transfer, objectively cancels the security function of the debit card itself, and the bank fails to fully fulfill its obligation to protect the cardholder's property;
4. The bank's business processes, such as checking ID cards and restricting large cash withdrawals, exist in name only and fail to fulfill the duty of care.
Banks are not at fault and irresponsible.
Yang Wenli (Director of Banking Law Committee of Beijing Lawyers Association, lawyer of Beijing Yu Wei Law Firm)
From this case, we know that the deposit on Mr. Tang's debit card was transferred to another debit card opened in the name of Mr. Tang by others using the transfer function of telephone banking, and the latter debit card was handled by others using Mr. Tang's forged ID card. Under normal circumstances, you need to enter the card number and password of the debit card according to the voice prompt of the telephone banking system to open the telephone banking transfer business, and use the telephone banking to transfer money. How did the criminals get Mr. Tang's card number and password? We don't know, because the public security organs haven't solved the case yet.
Similar cases are not uncommon. For example, a woman took a debit card from the ATM of a bank and discarded the transaction slip printed by the ATM, but this move happened to be noticed by criminals. So, after a lady left, the criminals picked up the transaction slip and got the relevant information on a lady's debit card, such as the card number of the debit card. What's more, when the woman entered the transaction password, she was peeped by the criminals who had already prepared it. Therefore, criminals can easily take advantage of the cashier's negligence to obtain relevant information on debit cards, thus committing illegal and criminal acts.
According to the relevant provisions of the Debit Card Charter of a bank: "Cardholders should keep their debit card passwords properly to prevent them from being leaked, and all debit card transactions with leaked passwords are regarded as legal transactions. The cardholder shall bear the economic losses caused by the loss of the password. "
Therefore, it is necessary to remind everyone that cardholders should take good care of their debit cards and passwords to prevent leakage, loss and theft. After handling the debit card, banks should change the initial password of the debit card in time and edit the password scientifically. Try to avoid using passwords that are easy to be deciphered by others, such as your birthday and regular numbers. In addition, when withdrawing money from the ATM of the bank, we should first pay attention to whether there are suspicious people near the ATM. If you find suspicious people, you should go to other ATMs to withdraw money or change to the bank counter. After the transaction is completed, the debit card and transaction slip should be taken away in time and properly kept. In addition, don't give your ID card or a copy of your ID card to others at will, giving criminals an opportunity.
In addition, banks only examine citizen's identity cards in form, and banks can't conduct substantive examination at all. The authenticity of the ID card is ultimately determined by the public security organs. Moreover, I think the key to the case is that the criminals obtained Mr. Tang's card number and password, which made the deposit transferred from Mr. Tang's debit card, which is the direct reason for the theft of the deposit. Of course, the forged Mr. Tang's identity card has not been identified, and banks should improve their skills and technical equipment to identify the authenticity of identity cards to avoid similar incidents.
Although in this case, Mr. Tang stated that he had never lost or disclosed his debit card number, password, ID card and other information to others, according to the principle of "whoever advocates the proof" and the relevant provisions of China's General Principles of Civil Law, I think it is difficult for him to obtain compensation through civil procedures unless Mr. Tang proves that the bank has obvious faults in the theft of deposits in this case.
Since Mr. Tang has reported the case to the public security organ, the public security organ has filed a case for investigation, and this case is a criminal offence of fraud. The public security organs should be responsible for arresting criminals, investigating their criminal responsibility according to law, recovering the illegal money and compensating Mr. Tang for all his losses.
Source: Legal Daily
There are many more here.