10 On June 2nd, China Judgment Document Network publicized the civil ruling of the second instance of contract dispute entrusted by Yisheng Payment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yisheng Payment) and Guangzhou UnionPay Network Payment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Guangzhou UnionPay).
It happened that on 20 1 1, the two sides signed a cooperation agreement on collection and payment, but they encountered the case of Lian Xin Easy Loan fund-raising fraud and illegal absorption of public deposits. After the incident, several cardholders claimed that the transaction involved was not authorized by them, which led to the deduction bank returning the transaction amount totaling 2,399,600 yuan to the cardholders, which in turn caused losses to Guangzhou UnionPay Company.
Therefore, Guangzhou UnionPay filed a lawsuit with the Nankai District People's Court in Tianjin, demanding Yisheng to pay a refund of 2,399,600 yuan and interest of1000,400 yuan.
The court of first instance held that Yisheng Payment failed to guarantee the authenticity of the cardholder's authorization as promised, which led the cardholder to deny that the transaction was authorized by himself or an individual, resulting in the loss of Guangzhou UnionPay, and Yisheng Payment constituted a breach of contract. Guangzhou UnionPay has the right to demand Yisheng to compensate for its losses and interests, and bear the case acceptance fee of 26,800 yuan.
In this regard, Yi Shengfu appealed, pointing out five reasons, demanding that the first-instance judgment be revoked, the claim of Guangzhou UnionPay be rejected or sent back for retrial, and the litigation expenses shall be borne by Guangzhou UnionPay.
First of all, it cannot be judged that the transaction involved is not authorized by the cardholder just because the cardholder denies it. Moreover, it is unreasonable for the cardholder to deny that the transaction is authorized by himself after one year.
Secondly, this case involves Lian Xin Easy Loan Fund-raising fraud and illegal absorption of public deposits, so the trial should be suspended or the prosecution dismissed. The trial result of Lian Xin Easy Loan Case plays a decisive role in finding out and identifying the fact that the cardholder involved in this case authorized the transaction. At the same time, returning the criminal money will also affect the amount of the subject matter of this case, thus affecting the responsibility sharing between Yisheng Payment and Guangzhou UnionPay.
Next, Yisheng Payment exposed the violation of the collection and payment business in cooperation with Guangzhou UnionPay, and pointed out that Guangzhou UnionPay was also at fault and should bear the responsibility.
Yisheng Payment stated that the Measures for Deposit and Management of Customer Reserves of Payment Institutions stipulates that cooperation in payment business between different payment institutions is not allowed, and payment business funds cannot be exchanged and transferred. The collection and payment agreement signed with Guangzhou UnionPay violates the regulatory provisions, resulting in transaction losses in this case, and Guangzhou UnionPay should bear the fault liability.
Yisheng Payment further pointed out that Guangzhou UnionPay passed on and evaded the legal responsibilities of the acquirer to the network special merchants through the Agreement on Cooperation in Acquisitioning Business and the Agreement on Cooperation in Agency Payment Business, such as the qualification examination of special merchants and the signing of acceptance agreements.
Yisheng Payment believes that Guangzhou UnionPay, as a payment institution that has obtained the online payment business license, should directly develop special merchants according to the regulatory requirements, and sign a bank card acceptance agreement with the special merchants to safeguard the interests of cardholders, instead of transferring and evading its legal responsibility as a payment institution through cooperation with the appellant.
In addition, Yisheng payment also means that it has fulfilled its responsibilities and contractual obligations as a payment institution, and has fulfilled its reasonable care obligations without fault. The corresponding interest loss compensated by the first-instance judgment is calculated according to the loan interest rate of the People's Bank of China for the same period, which also lacks factual and legal basis.
The court finally decided to revoke the judgment of the first instance and refund the acceptance fees of the first and second cases, totaling 52,800 yuan.
The Tianjin No.1 Intermediate People's Court held that the case originated from the cardholder's denial that the transaction was authorized by himself or an individual, so the initiation link of the deduction process involved economic crimes. Whether the transaction is authorized by the cardholder himself or by an individual needs to be resolved through criminal cases, and relevant criminal cases are under trial. The civil lawsuit filed by Guangzhou UnionPay shall be rejected by ruling, and the disputes between the parties can be resolved through criminal cases or separately after the criminal cases are concluded.
According to data, Yisheng Payment was established in Tianjin in 2008. In May of 201/kloc-0, the national payment license for prepaid card issuance and acceptance, Internet payment, mobile phone payment and bank card acquiring business was obtained, which was renewed in May of 20 16 and was valid until May of 202 1 year.
Since the beginning of this year, Yisheng Payment has been punished by the central bank four times. The reasons for punishment include "violation of the Measures for the Administration of Bank Card Acquisitions, the Measures for the Deposit and Management of Customers' Reserves of Payment Institutions, violation of the Provisions on the Administration of Payment and Settlement, failure to establish the training and inspection system for special merchants and the transaction risk monitoring system as required, and failure to take effective measures when it is found that special merchants are suspected or suspected of violating laws and regulations".