What responsibility should the bank bear if the bank card is stolen at home and swiped for 3, yuan?

The bank bears half of the responsibility for bank card theft

The plaintiff

The card was stolen for 38, yuan

On July 7, 28, Zhongshan Guzhen Sub-branch of a bank company limited by Mr. Hu opened a bank wealth management card (debit card) and started the function of "bank communication". From April, 21 to July, 211, Mr. Hu authorized Chen Mou and Chen Mou to handle payment and transfer business in a bank with this bank card.

at around 22: on July 22nd, 211, Mr. Hu went home and found that the SMS showed that at 2: 57 that night, this bank card was swiped in Macau, which was equivalent to RMB 381,591.5. On the same day, from 23: 41 to 44: , cash was withdrawn from the teller machine in Zhuhai four times, totaling RMB 9,8.

Mr. Hu said that after discovering that the bank card was stolen, he immediately reported to the police and applied to the bank for loss reporting, and the cash withdrawn occurred during his own reporting.

after the incident, Mr. Hu went to the bank to print the transaction details and demanded compensation for the losses, but the bank never paid. Mr. Hu believes that the defendant, as a commercial bank, has the obligation to ensure the safety of customers' funds. Because the defendant failed to fulfill the above obligations, the plaintiff's bank card was stolen and cashed out. Request the court to order the bank to compensate 391,481.9 yuan and interest losses.

the bank

the card owner failed to properly protect personal information

The defendant argued that the bank card was stolen and swiped, which involved a criminal offence, and the loss was caused by a criminal act, so the plaintiff should recover it from the criminals; In addition, according to the Articles of Association of Bank Debit Cards and other relevant regulations, transactions conducted by password are regarded as my own actions. Since the transactions involved in this case are all completed after entering the correct password, the plaintiff should bear the consequences whether the criminals use fake cards or not.

the bank believes that Mr. Hu has repeatedly handed over his bank card and password to a third person to handle the transfer and withdrawal business, resulting in the information and password of the bank card being known by many people. The plaintiff is not good at keeping the debit card and password, and should take full responsibility for the disclosure of bank card information and password.

More importantly, the bank believes that Mr. Hu has started the "Yinxintong" service, but Mr. Hu learned from the short message that after the bank card was stolen in Macau, he did not take timely measures to report the loss, resulting in the withdrawal of 9886.4 yuan from the card in Zhuhai. The bank should not bear any responsibility for expanding the loss of 9886.4 yuan.

after verification by the court, the alarm receipt provided by Guzhen police showed that Mr. Hu called the police at : on July 23, 211, and the bank card transaction records showed that the plaintiff reported the loss on July 23, 211, while the criminals' inquiries, swiping cards and withdrawing cash all occurred before Mr. Hu called the police.

the court

the cardholder's bank

each bears half of the responsibility

The Second People's Court of Zhongshan held that the plaintiff opened a debit card at the defendant's place and the two parties established a savings contract relationship. In this case, the consumption and cash withdrawal involved were not done by Mr. Hu himself, nor by Shao Mouzhang holding a bank card authorized by him, but by the "clone card" used by Shao Mouzhang. As the issuing bank, the bank failed to correctly identify the real card from the fake card, and accepted the consumer transaction with the illegally copied bank card, and withdrew the corresponding money from the plaintiff's account. In this regard, the defendant failed to fulfill the obligation of careful review and should be liable for breach of contract for his wrong behavior.

however, the cardholder bears the burden of proof for the fact that the password was leaked. Mr. Hu failed to prove how his bank card password was known by others, and he should bear the legal consequences of failing to prove it. Moreover, the plaintiff has repeatedly handed over the bank card to a third party for use, so the court found that the plaintiff failed to fulfill the responsibility of properly keeping the password, which led to the password being known by others and was also at fault for its own losses. In addition, the bank card involved in the case has opened SMS service, but the plaintiff failed to find out in time when obtaining the inquiry information of the card, and failed to take effective measures to prevent and avoid the loss from expanding immediately after discovery. Therefore, the plaintiff should bear corresponding responsibilities for the funds in his bank card being stolen and cashed out.

? In view of the fact that both the bank and the card owner neglected to perform their own responsibilities, the court held that both parties were responsible for 5% of the losses of 391,481.9 yuan. The court then ruled that a bank should compensate the plaintiff Hu Moufeng for the deposit loss of 195,74.95 yuan and interest. After the case was pronounced in the first instance, the original defendants refused to accept the judgment and appealed. Recently, the Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court made a second-instance judgment after hearing the case according to law, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

The brush thief was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment

■ Link

After reporting the case to the Guzhen police in Zhongshan City, Mr. Hu was investigated by the public security organ and transferred to the People's Procuratorate of the First Urban District of Zhongshan City for review and prosecution. The court found that the defendant Shao Mouzhang illegally obtained the duplicate card of Mr. Hu's bank card, and left the country from Gongbei Port of Zhuhai City to Macao Special Administrative Region at 6 pm on July 22, 211. At 2: 29 on the same day, he took the duplicate card to the ATM of "Hong Kong Yintong" to check the balance (excluding the inquiry fee of 4 yuan), and then at 2: 57, he went to a jewelry store in Guangzhou Street, Macao to use the bank card to cash in HK$ 45, by fictitious transaction. At about 11 o'clock that night, after entering the country from Gongbei Port, Shao Mouzhang took the duplicate bank card to the Liangfenqiao ATM of Zhuhai Branch of a bank in Yuehai Middle Road, Zhuhai City for four withdrawals, totaling RMB 9,8 (excluding the handling fee of RMB 86.4).

On February 7, 212, Shao Mouzhang was arrested by the public security organs, and the money was not returned. On September 11th, 212, the First People's Court of Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province made a criminal judgment, found Shao Mouzhang guilty of credit card fraud, sentenced him to seven years and six months' imprisonment and fined him RMB 5,.