The bank gave an extra 1,600 yuan, but the depositor refused to return it on the grounds that "it is not responsible for leaving the bank". What was the result?

In people's memory, there is a warm reminder written next to many bank counters: "We will not be responsible for cash if it is counted in person."

This slogan seems to be for the convenience of both parties, but in actual operation it will cause countless troubles and property losses, especially for the party withdrawing money, there is one more person who should not be obligated. The "counting the money" requirement was so controversial that in 2017, this slogan was brought to court.

Windfall

The amount involved in this incident was only 1,600 yuan, which was not a large amount, but it brought to the surface the conflicts between banks and ordinary people. This ridiculous-sounding news made headlines in December 2017. The protagonist of the story, Ms. Qin, was not a fraudster, but just an ordinary bank customer.

One day in December, Ms. Qin was handling withdrawals at a local bank. She wanted to withdraw the balance of 22,400 from her card, but maybe the bank employees were working for a long time that day and were tired, so I habitually counted the whole amount and gave Ms. Qin a total of 24,000 yuan in banknotes. After getting the money, Ms. Qin hurriedly went to do other things and did not count the extra 1,600 yuan carefully. Home.

When the bank settled the account, I found that the account was not correct and a customer withdrew more money! Although the amount was not large, it was a big deal that the bank accounts did not match up, so all the employees quickly started checking the accounts of customers one by one, and finally found that the missing money had been taken away by Ms. Qin.

The next day, Ms. Qin received a call. The bank asked her to return 1,600 yuan. Confused, Ms. Qin took out her wallet to count, and then realized that she had indeed taken too much. However, with the money in her hand, Ms. Qin was undecided. Why did she have to give it back? No one would be willing to repay an extra sum of money out of thin air. Moreover, Ms. Qin felt that it was in compliance with the rules to take the money. Didn't the bank itself say so?

We are not responsible for leaving the cabinet! This money has already left the bank. It was not stolen or deceived by me. It was given by the bank staff. In this case, why should I pay it back?

Ms. Qin got into a "bargain" with the bank. No matter how hard the bank tried to talk, Ms. Qin insisted that "it will not be responsible for leaving the bank" and refused to give it. The bank had already solved the problem privately. It was impossible, so she took Ms. Qin to court with a complaint, and the matter became a big deal and became known throughout the country.

Hot social discussion

What’s amazing is that when the news was posted online, netizens’ comments overwhelmingly supported Ms. Qin, while the bank, as the “victim”, was criticism. It turns out that everyone has been complaining about the bank's "no responsibility for leaving the bank" policy for a long time. Now the bank has encountered Ms. Qin, who will never look back. Netizens said that Ms. Qin did a great job and gave everyone a sigh of relief. .

All these remarks are not caused by netizens being indifferent and confusing right and wrong, but because they have been touched. Ms. Qin is a rare exception who can take advantage of bank regulations. Most people are deeply harmed by this regulation. Netizens posted proof of their "victimization" in the comment area. Many people simply did not check carefully because they were in a hurry.

The bank did not give them enough money. It was immediately discovered that when the depositor found out that the money was missing the next day and went to the bank to ask for it, he could only get the excuse that "it will not be responsible for leaving the bank". The money that the depositor lost as a result was lost and had nowhere to go. Chase.

But counting the amount is not the responsibility of the bank customers, but the responsibility of the staff. People can understand that the staff made mistakes in this process, but the bank should at least make up for the mistakes in time. However, a "leaving the counter is not responsible" made the bank completely pick it off.

The reason why people did not side with the bank in Ms. Qin’s incident was because of this rule. It was the customer, not the bank, who suffered the most losses. Ms. Qin took extra money from the bank, and the bank came to her door the next day with various evidences. It can be seen that as long as the bank takes it seriously, the money will never be unclear.

However, when the bank gives less money to depositors, its high efficiency disappears. How can this not make people angry?

Everyone is paying close attention to the progress of this incident. Before the court session, many netizens have started to complain about the bank on the Internet. Whether the bank wins or loses in court this time is no longer the most important thing. It's important. In everyone's mind, it has been sentenced to death. A small economic dispute has become a hot social event.

Overlord Clause

Under the spotlight, the case came to court. What Ms. Qin proposed was still the bank’s own regulations. Since the regulations were set by the bank itself, why should it not apply to her? Doing math? But judges naturally have to act in accordance with legal regulations. This so-called "no responsibility for leaving the counter" does not exist in any laws and regulations. It is simply a set of methods created by the bank itself.

As far as Ms. Qin is concerned, this regulation is naturally not the basis for her to take the money, but it is an "illegal gain" and must be returned to the bank.

However, the court also raised an important issue, that is, the bank's own overlord clause is invalid. It will not work for Ms. Qin to use this provision, and it will not work for the bank to use this provision against depositors. If If there is a problem of banks giving less money to depositors, depositors can also resort to law.

Although the result of this judgment is not very satisfactory, it has received a very positive response. At least because of the influence of this news, it revealed the essence of the bank overlord clause. From then on, banks It won't work if we continue to deal with it this way.

The bank should be a very authoritative institution capable of protecting citizens' personal property. However, what is causing endless controversy is that in recent years, some actions of banks have put themselves on the opposite side of their customers, and have become the "villain" that damages property safety. Such behavior overdrafts the reputation of the bank itself. When everyone If you are no longer willing to trust the bank, the conflict will become an instant tinderbox, leading to a lose-lose outcome.

On the bright side, the voice of the masses is meaningful. Nowadays, many banks have quietly removed the "no responsibility for leaving the bank" reminder. Now we will hardly see such a rule. Progress is always happening, and imperfection will always exist. As ordinary people whose rights and interests are easily violated, we are often not the lucky Ms. Qin, but victims of losing money.

Is it reliable to put the money in our hands in the bank? At least for now, we can still give the bank some confidence and give it time to get better. Even if problems arise, the law will always be our backing.

As a citizen, if you know the law and can reasonably take up legal weapons to protect yourself, you will get better results than tolerating and making trouble. Both customers and banks are gradually growing and becoming stronger.