China Construction Bank10 million yuan is missing. What are the highlights of this dispute?

According to related reports, it is the focus of two major disputes;

One is that the lady thinks that the bank has not fulfilled its due responsibilities and authorized the transfer of deposits without my consent without contractual agreement and legal provisions.

Secondly, the bank believes that the transfer of the money is operated by a third-party settlement institution and has nothing to do with the bank.

The first instance rejected the woman's claim; At the end of the second trial, the bank decided to compensate the woman for 4.5 million yuan and the interest on the current deposit loan of 20 16438 to the specific repayment time; If the woman can be compensated for more than 4.48 million yuan afterwards, the right of recourse belongs to the bank.

In fact, the most controversial highlight of this matter is that at the first trial, the court held that the bank was the innocent party, and the woman's10 million yuan was transferred away, and the bank did not have any abnormal notice. This makes women feel very angry. Now the bank will give an early warning of such frequent transfers and excessive transactions, but it is very strange that women's more than 200 transfers have not caused the bank's early warning.

Strangely enough, according to the relevant information, the signature date of the deduction authorizer is March 28th, but when the woman opens an account, it is April 20th, which means that the relevant suspect has already made the authorizer before opening the account.

Then why is there such a big difference between the signatures before and after, but the bank didn't find the problem?

At that time, the woman was because her friend had any achievements and tasks in this bank, and the wealth management products she bought at that time had high interest returns, so the woman deposited her money in this bank and did not open SMS service. Later, the woman also charged interest.

However, the money behind was transferred because the woman did not open the SMS reminder service, which means that both parties are responsible and wrong.

And the final judgment of the second instance, I think it is still reasonable. Originally, the bank's early warning mechanism suggested frequent transfer, but this bank didn't, which is very strange.