Taking bank acceptance bills as bait, bank employees? Matchmaking? The borrower was cheated of 4.9 million yuan, so there is no claim.
Recently, Beijing Time reporter received a report from Li Ming (a pseudonym), the person in charge of Huizhou Guben Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Guben), that the employees of China Bank Huizhou Zhong Kai Development Zone Sub-branch colluded with the enterprise, and due to the chaotic internal management of the sub-branch, there was a major mistake in the operation of the margin account, which led to the 4.9 million yuan it lent to Huizhou Shanglianda Electronics Co., Ltd. being swept away and unable to be recovered.
It is understood that Guben Company has filed a lawsuit in the court on this case, and the court has conducted the first and second trials? Is there no legal basis for litigants to demand the defendant to bear the liability for compensation? The judgment rejected Gu Ben's claim.
Guben Company is not satisfied with this result. Li Ming told the Beijing Time reporter that the focus of the dispute in this case lies in the attribute of the margin account. ? It is against the current laws of the state that China Bank uses non-settlement accounts for settlement. The reply given by Huizhou Branch of the People's Bank of China to the court is obviously ambiguous, and the judge misunderstood and misjudged it, which is regrettable. ?
Beijing time reporter contacted the person in charge of China Bank Huizhou Branch. Bank of China stated that it handled the settlement business in a normal and compliant manner, and the relevant liability determination and compensation suggestions in this case were subject to the judicial judgment.
4.9 million loans were swept away.
Margin account? Promise?
20 14 10 Li, a friend of China Bank Huizhou Zhong Kai Development Zone Sub-branch, introduced Li Ming to Bai Yang, the boss of Shanglianda Company. Li told Li Ming that Bai Yang was a good customer. He borrowed a sum of money from the sub-branch and suggested lending it to Bai Yang, drawing an acceptance bill of 9.8 million yuan and getting back the principal and interest.
20 14 10 17. Li Ming signs a loan contract with Shanglianda Company. Bai Yang borrowed 4,900,000 yuan from Guben Company to issue a deposit for bank acceptance bills in China, and another 2,900,000 yuan for short-term capital turnover in Bai Yang. The loan will be repaid when the bank acceptance bill of 9.8 million yuan is issued, and the loan period is 2065438+2004 to 2065438+2004.
Industry insiders told Beijing Time reporter, what is this kind of loan called in private lending? Borrow money across the bridge? Lenders and borrowers negotiate with high interest rates. In this case, Guben Company lent 7.8 million yuan and repaid 8.22 million yuan before 2065438+2004129, including interest income of 420,000 yuan.
According to? Borrow money across the bridge? In order to ensure the security of this loan, Shanglianda Company agrees to transfer the online banking, seal and seal of the payee remitted to the account to Guben Company for control.
(Agreement on Acceptance of Bills of Exchange between Shanglian Company and Bank of China)
However, this seems to be thorough? Prevention and control? There is still a problem.
20 14124 October, Li proposed that Li Ming should deposit the funds directly into his margin account in order to ensure the safety of the funds.
Li promised Li Ming that the account was a special deposit account managed by the bank. Shanglianda Company has no conditions to control this account, such as online banking, and the money invested can only be used to issue bank acceptance bills, even if it is not invoiced, it will be returned to the original transfer-in account.
Li Ming told Beijing time that he was sure that the funds in Li's promised deposit account must be? Return the way you came? After that, 4.9 million yuan was transferred to the above deposit account at 14 pm on the same day.
However, only a few minutes after the successful transfer, Shanglianda Company went to China Bank to transfer the funds in the margin account to its basic account.
Li said that? Return the way you came? On the contrary, the loan was directly transferred to Shanglianda basic account through the operation of China Bank Zhong Kai Development Zone Sub-branch.
Subsequently, the money was immediately transferred to the third account (for repayment) by Shanglianda Company.
The money was lent out, but the other party refused to give the acceptance bill. Li Ming realized that something was wrong and then reported the case to the public security bureau.
Li Ming told the Beijing Time reporter. Afterwards, I learned that another company was cheated by 4.9 million in the same way at the same time. The seal pledged to me by Shanglianda Company was verified by the Public Security Bureau and found to be a fake seal. He carved five sets of fake seals and gave them to three companies at the same time. A * * * fraud11million yuan. ?
Li Ming also said that Shanglianda Company opened a margin account in the bank with a fake seal.
At present, Shanglianda Company, as a legal person, has been sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of 12 years by the court, but it is unable to repay the money because Shanglianda Company is insolvent.
The loan is now irrecoverable.
Beijing time reporter learned that besides Guben Company, two other companies were cheated, and the accumulated loss of borrowers was 1 1 more than 10,000 yuan.
Management confusion? Is it not due diligence for employees to collude with managers of enterprise branches?
? This is a case in which an employee of a bank colluded with an enterprise and used an internal account to commit fraud. It was carefully designed. ? Recalling the incident, Li Ming told the Beijing Time reporter. 20 14 10 2 1, just three days before the case happened, Shanglianda Company transferred 100 yuan from its basic account to the margin account. ? The reason why Bai Yang did this was to see if he could transfer the money to the company's margin account. Zheng, an employee of Shanglianda, confirmed during the investigation.
201410 100 on October 23rd, China Bank Zhong Kai Branch found this 100 yuan, and told Shanglianda that the company's deposit account could not keep the balance before invoicing, and asked it to transfer100 yuan out of the deposit account.
? This is obviously a means exercise for Shanglianda Company to implement fraud. ? Li Ming said.
Chen Mou, a salesman of China Bank Zhong Kai Branch, is investigating the testimony. On the 23rd, the banking system monitored this situation and asked Shanglianda Company to inform them that according to bank regulations, the margin account can't have a balance except the bank acceptance bill, and asked them to transfer it out as soon as possible.
After being familiar with the capital flow path between the margin account and basic account, Bai Yang committed fraud.
Li Ming believes that in the fraud case of Shanglianda Company, there was a major fault in the operation of the internal staff of China Bank Zhong Kai Sub-branch, resulting in the transfer of 4.9 million yuan.
Li Ming also revealed to the Beijing Times reporter that after investigation and verification by the public security organs, Bai Yang used a fake seal to open an account, and the bank neglected management and failed to verify the authenticity of the seal and other documents.
In particular, when Shanglianda Company applied to transfer the funds in the margin account to basic account, it made a major mistake and caused irreparable losses.
? According to the regulations of Bank of China, the transfer of funds in the margin account needs to be applied to the branch leaders, and then reported to the branch for approval. However, when Shanglianda Company handled the fund transfer, the branch president was in a meeting, and the teller only communicated by telephone without the signature of the compliance president. Even the instructions for early withdrawal are artificially fabricated after the business is completed. ? Li Ming told the Beijing Time reporter.
? The transfer of funds from the margin account requires the approval of the branch. When the staff of the branch checked with the branch whether Shanglianda Company issued the acceptance bill, the account manager of the branch said that there was no funds in the margin account at present, so the branch did not handle the acceptance bill business for the time being, so the branch released this business. At that time, together with the 4.9 million cheated by another company, Shanglianda's margin account had 9.8 million funds. ?
In addition, Beijing Time reporter interviewed BOC on the employees involved. Regarding whether Li and other employees are still employed in the industry, and whether BOC conducts internal verification and accountability rectification, BOC did not respond positively, saying that the employee problem needs judicial judgment.
The court ruled that the Bank of China was at fault, but it lost both cases.
After the incident, Guben Company sued China Bank Zhong Kai Branch on the grounds that there was a major operational error in the margin account.
The first and second trials of the court held that there was some fault in BOC's business, but it was not illegal, and rejected Gu Ben's claim.
(Court's first-instance judgment)
For the court's decision, Guben Company obviously cannot accept it.
Li Ming told the Beijing Time reporter. The account transferred by our company is a margin account, which has not been filed with the People's Bank of China, and is not a settlement account.
The ownership and control of this account is in the Bank of China. In fact, it was the internal margin account of Bank of China that received the money transferred to Bank of China by mistake by our company, and then it was cheated by Shanglianda, and the money that was not Shanglianda was sent to Shanglianda by mistake, which caused the money to be unrecoverable. ?
Beijing time reporter learned that bank acceptance bill is a payment and financing tool. For example, if an enterprise raises RMB 6,543,800+yuan from a bank, the bank can not only issue RMB 6,543,800+yuan in loans to the enterprise, but also issue RMB 6,543,800+yuan in acceptance bills to the enterprise.
After receiving the bank acceptance bill, the enterprise can pay the funds by bill or exchange cash with the bank.
In this process, the bank requires the enterprise to pay the full deposit according to the different credit ratings of the enterprise in the bank where the account is opened.
The cheated 4.9 million was loaned by Shanglianda in the name of deposit.
According to the regulations of the People's Bank of China, the deposit account is not a settlement account, and RMB payment and settlement business is not allowed.
Li Ming suggested that the court approve the account? Are there no mandatory or prohibitive provisions in the current national laws and regulations? This statement is obviously wrong.
The Measures for the Administration of RMB Settlement Accounts and the Measures for Payment and Settlement clearly stipulate that the accounts to be settled must be listed in accordance with the Measures for the Administration of RMB Settlement Accounts and settled in accordance with the provisions of the Measures for Payment and Settlement.
It is against the current laws of the state that China Bank uses non-settlement accounts for settlement.
However, after Shanglianda's application, the funds were transferred from the margin account to the non-original deposit account, and ICBC Zhong Kai Branch used the non-settlement account for settlement, which violated the current national laws.
Beijing time reporters learned more about BOC for the first time.
China Bank said that Shanglianda Company did not have the balance of opening a bank acceptance bill in the bank, that is, the fund did not have the corresponding pledge guarantee business, and the corresponding business relationship was not established before we opened a new bank acceptance bill for Shanglianda Company, so the fund did not belong to the margin account fund. ?
The funds in the margin account do not belong to the margin account funds. Li Ming does not agree with this statement of BOC.
At the same time, he told the Beijing Time reporter that when he found that 4.9 million people had been cheated, he took the initiative to check the nature of the deposit account with several employees of China Bank.
? At that time, I also contacted Wu Kechang (now vice president of risk control line of Huizhou Branch of Bank of China), and he said that this account could not be settled theoretically, and it didn't matter much if it was done occasionally. ?
Li Ming pointed out that the testimony of China Bank employees in the criminal case of Bai Yang suspected of fraud has also been confirmed. They assured him that after the money was remitted to the deposit account involved, it became a deposit and could not be transferred.
? ICBC knew that the 4.9 million yuan involved in the case was transferred by our company, but it still accepted the funds illegally, and assisted Shanglianda Company in lobbying together, so that our company was defrauded of the 4.9 million yuan involved. ? Li Ming said.
According to Article 3 1 of the Administrative Measures and Operating Rules for Bank Acceptance Bills in acceptance business of China Bank Co., Ltd., the deposit account shall not accept direct deposit in the form of cash or remittance, and must be transferred through the drawer basic account or general account. ? Therefore, Li Ming advocated that Zhong Kai Sub-branch should strictly examine whether the source of the 4.9 million yuan was transferred from its basic deposit account or general deposit account, but in this case, neither its source nor the funds in the deposit account were examined? Return the way you came? There is a serious fault in the principle of returning the deposit, and we should compensate the company for all its losses.
Should BOC be liable for compensation?
Beijing time reporter found in the investigation that the focus of the dispute in this case lies in the margin operation? Hard to say? .
In the criminal investigation in Bai Yang, Bai Yang admitted that the bank staff had two opinions on whether the deposit account should be deposited in basic account or the deposit account received. One is to deposit it in basic account and then deduct it into the margin account, and the other is to deposit it directly into the received margin account.
So, he remitted 100 yuan to the deposit account, and wanted to try it before issuing the invoice.
What about fraud? Matchmaker? Li and other employees know little about margin trading, but they boldly guarantee the cheated company directly, which also shows the confusion of BOC's business specialty and the major problems of employee compliance management.
(Testimony of Li, an employee of China Bank, in the criminal case file of Bai Yang)
According to the Management Measures for Acceptance Bills of China Bank, Beijing Time reporter learned that the deposit should be transferred from the basic account or general account opened by the company in its bank, and cash or remittance is not allowed.
(Management Measures and Operating Procedures for China Bank Acceptance Bills in acceptance business provided by Li Ming)
According to Liao, the business department of Bank of China Huizhou Branch, deposits cannot be directly deposited into deposit accounts. If there is a balance in the deposit without an acceptance bill, the customer needs to write an application, explain the reason and specify that the balance should be transferred to other settlement accounts.
Huizhou Branch of the People's Bank of China determined that the deposit account involved did not belong to the management standard of RMB bank settlement account, and it did not need the approval and filing of the local people's bank. On the premise of not violating national laws and regulations, the transfer and use of funds in deposit accounts shall be negotiated by banks and units and handled according to the agreement.
(Reply from Huizhou Branch of the People's Bank of China to the court in the first instance)
Regarding operational disputes, BOC replied to Beijing Time reporter that it has been handling settlement business in accordance with the Bill Law, Payment and Settlement Measures and other relevant laws and regulations.
Li Ming believes that the focus of the case dispute lies in the attribute of the household registration.
The deposit account is not filed with the People's Bank of China and does not belong to the settlement account. The loan of Guben Company has not been delivered to the account controlled by Shanglianda, so the loan relationship has not been fulfilled and the ownership of the money has not changed, so China Bank has no right to dispose of the money.
? The reply issued by Huizhou Branch of China People's Bank was ambiguous, and the judge misunderstood and misjudged.
I think Bank of China and People's Bank of China bully customers, engage in relationships and obstruct judicial justice.
Many employees of Bank of China violated professional ethics to collect intermediary commissions, and misled two companies, such as Gu Ben, to deposit money in deposits received account, which eventually led to heavy losses. ? Li Ming told the Beijing Time reporter. If it loses the case, BOC, as a listed company, will make an announcement in case of major judicial cases. ?
Li Ming said that the account into which Guben Company's funds were transferred was an internal account of China Bank, which was specially used for the pledge of Lianda Acceptance Bill, and the ownership and control of this account were in China Bank.
It is the fact that the management of China Bank was chaotic, knowing that the money wrongly transferred from the internal margin account should not have been received, but was deceived by Shanglianda, and the money that was not Shanglianda was wrongly delivered to Shanglianda, which led to the fact that the money could not be recovered.
According to a lawyer of a law firm in Beijing who didn't want to be named, because the customer corresponding to the bank is Shanglianda Company, and the party lending the funds has not signed the entrustment agreement, if the three parties communicate privately and sign the relevant agreement, and the bank is the insider, the plaintiff fails to perform the relevant obligations and makes mistakes in the operation process. If there is a relevant written agreement or factual contract, the liability for breach of contract can be investigated from the perspective of contract law.
If there is no written agreement or factual contract, the tort liability shall be investigated from the perspective of tort.
? If it is indeed the bank personnel who cause infringement of others in the course of execution, the bank should bear corresponding responsibilities; If the staff of the bank has a major fault, the bank can hold the staff accountable. ?