120,000 deposit was transferred by bank staff privately. Why are depositors sentenced to 80% responsibility?

I was surprised when I first saw the news, so I have been following up. After finding out the ins and outs, I discussed it with my friend who is a lawyer. I think there is no problem with the verdict. In fact, in a word, the Qingxu County Court held that Ms. Ding, as a depositor, should pay attention to the safety of funds.

In fact, the dispute in this case lies in the main reason of property loss: did Ms. Ding lend the certificate privately? Or is there a loophole in bank management?

Let me elaborate on these two points.

Let's briefly review the time sequence and details of the case:

2065438+June 2009, Ms. Ding went to the bank with her ID card to check the deposit situation, and unexpectedly found that120,000 yuan was "missing" and immediately reported the case.

In September of the same year, Wang was detained on suspicion of fraud, and was later prosecuted on suspicion of fraud and sentenced to life imprisonment.

In April 2020, Ms. Ding sued Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank. According to the investigation in official website, the case was first filed on July 6th, 20021.

202 1, the court of first instance ruled that Ms. Ding was responsible for 80%.

In June 5438 +2022 10, Ms. Ding received the judgment of the court of second instance and upheld the original judgment.

Wang Moumou is Ms. Ding's nephew and son-in-law. At the beginning of 20 17, Wang found Ms. Ding and said that the unit had financial management tasks. I hope she can help. Ms. Ding successively transferred RMB 5 million to Wang, and the principal and income after the maturity of financial management were RMB * * * 5.43 million. 2065438+March 2009, in order to help Wang complete the task, Ms. Ding agreed to turn the money into a fixed term and deposit 2 million yuan as a current account.

On April 3rd and 4th of that year, Ms. Ding deposited RMB 3 million and RMB 2 million in Qingyuan Sub-branch of Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank and the business department of Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank respectively. After the last deposit, Wang left Ms. Ding's deposit slip and ID card in the business hall on the grounds that a large deposit can receive a gift.

However, ten days later, the gift was not delivered, and Ms. Ding repeatedly asked for an ID card. Ms. Ding immediately went to the bank to inquire and found that the previous deposit of 5.43 million yuan was not recorded at all, and another 7 million yuan was also transferred by Wang Moumou.

After investigation, on April 3, 2009, on April 3, 2065438, the morning after Ms. Ding deposited a fixed deposit of 3 million yuan, Wang took Ms. Ding's ID card and deposit slip to the counter of Qingyuan Sub-branch of Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank to handle the transfer formalities. On the afternoon when Ms. Ding deposited 2 million yuan, Wang transferred money to the business department of Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank.

Why are depositors sentenced to 80% responsibility?

Out of trust in her husband's nephew and son-in-law Wang Moumou, Ms. Ding voluntarily gave her ID card and bank card to Wang Moumou for safekeeping and use. Ms. Ding's economic loss was caused by Wang's fraud. Wang was punished by law and should be liable for compensation.

In addition, Ms. Ding and Wang are not only the trust relationship between ordinary relatives, but there is a lot of evidence to prove that Wang himself has long-term large-scale and frequent economic exchanges with many members of the Ding family.

When Wang was entrusted by Ms. Ding to handle the deposit and withdrawal business, she held Ms. Ding's identity document, passbook, deposit slip, bank card and so on. Ms. Ding also informed Wang of the relevant password.

Why is the bank only responsible for 20%?

I asked a friend who is a lawyer. The friend said that if Ms. Ding really gave Wang's ID card, password and other important information, it was really Ms. Ding's major fault and she needed to bear the main responsibility.

After reading the judgment disclosed on the Internet, the court found that the depositor was responsible because under normal circumstances, the depositor should know something about the assets in his personal account before handling the personal savings business, otherwise he could not handle the subsequent personal savings business. Ms. Dante has given her ID card to others for a long time, failed to take any preventive measures against possible illegal infringement, failed to fulfill her basic duty of care for the safe custody of her property, and should bear the main fault responsibility for her property losses.

However, the bank only bears 20% of the compensation liability because Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank failed to fulfill its due diligence obligation to ensure the safety of depositors' funds on the same day or the next day, so it should bear certain fault liability for the deposit losses involved in Ms. Ding's case, so the court ruled that Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank should bear 20% of the compensation liability.

How to divide the responsibilities of banks and depositors?

Lawyer friend said that generally speaking, depositors deposit their money in banks, and banks do have the responsibility to ensure the safety of deposits, but the specific circumstances of this case are different.

In this case, Ms. Ding, the depositor, provided Wang with documents such as certificates of deposit, ID card and power of attorney, which led to Wang's deposit transfer through the normal bank process, and there was active authorization, so the depositor personally assumed the main responsibility.

If depositors do not actively authorize, but criminals transfer their deposits through forged or altered means, it is necessary to determine whether the bank is at fault in verifying the identity of the parties and other business processes.

At present, there is no clear legal provision on the scope of bank's responsibility for depositors' deposit losses, which needs to be judged according to specific circumstances. The nonstandard procedures of rural commercial banks or local banks are usually the reason why they bear the main risks of disputes.

Judging from the public information, there is no obvious major fault of the bank in this case, but Wang Moumou still belongs to the bank staff. Therefore, the court ruled that banks should bear 20% responsibility, which may be more from the perspective of bank management of employees.