The 80 -year -old bank card has a million yuan "wicked"?The court was judged like this!

Xiao Mou, an old man who lived in Beijing, accidentally discovered that his deposit balance of his construction bank card was incorrect in December 2020. After inquiring, he learned that the card was swiped away more than 100 million yuan in January 2019.

After discussing the transaction information such as the Beijing Wusheng Road Sub -branch of China Construction Bank, Xiao Lao then sued the branch to court. The evidence submitted by the above -mentioned sub -branch showed that the elderly sent a text message 16 seconds after the transaction. The old man said that he did not see the prompt text message. In the end, the court's first and second trials rejected the lawsuit of the elderly. Recently, this bizarre case has aroused public attention.

The old man's bank card was swiped by 10.157 million yuan

The judgment shows that Xiao Lao said that the bank card involved in the bank was stolen on January 17, 2019. The stolen land was Anshan City, Liaoning Province. The amount of stolen was 1.0157 million yuan. There is a work and use, and due to inconvenience, it has not left Beijing before and after the above point of time.

According to the transaction details submitted by the CCB Wusheng Road Sub -branch, the transaction location shown in the above transaction is Quanti Meiyi Furniture Plaza, Tiedong District, Anshan City. The transaction summary is consumption of other channels for inter -bank channels. Xiao Lao claims that the above transactions are not authorized by himself and himself.

Construction Bank Wusheng Road Sub -branch said the expenditure did not have a stolen brush. This method of transaction is cross -bank consumption transactions. Xiao Lao knows and well -known about such transactions, and has similar transactions before and after the transaction.

The above -mentioned branch believes that the transaction involved in the transaction is Xiao Lao himself or authorized to operate others. In terms of transaction time, the case involved in the transaction occurred at around 9 am, which is consistent with the daily consumption and consumption habits of Xiao Lao's other time; from time to time, the bank card involved in the bank has always had to withdraw money and transfer consumption in different places. , Ningxia and other places, and have traded in different places many times; within two years of the case involved in the case, Xiao Lao has always used the card. After the stolen brush, there is no loss or reporting the case. Essence

The branch also mentioned that the transaction in this case may be a transaction of others, and the evidence submitted shows that Xiao Lao handed over the bank card and bank card passwords involved in the case to Xiao Yan for transactions. In addition, the branch also pointed out that the normal bank card stolen situation is that there will be no balance, and most of them are in the middle of the night, and it will not be similar to Xiao Lao.

The court of first instance found that from December 2016 to the dispute transactions involved in the case, many transaction records outside Beijing, including ATM withdrawal, consumption, transfer of transfer, etc. In addition, on January 27, 2019, before the controversial transaction, the bank card involved in the case continued to have transaction records. As of September 23, 2021, there were more than 200 transactions in the controversial bank card. Essence

The court of first instance pointed out that according to the bank details submitted by the CCB Wusheng Road Sub -branch, the transaction amount involved in the case was huge, and before and after the transaction, there were many transactions in the bank card involved. At present, Xiao Lao advocated that the transaction involved was not his own operation, but he did not submit any preliminary evidence to prove it. Therefore, the court of first instance believed that Xiao Lao's lawsuit request had no factual basis, and the court of first instance did not support his lawsuit.

Focus on controversial: Whether it was stolen

After the judgment of the first instance, Xiao Lao refused to accept the verdict.肖老方面认为，在发现盗刷事实后，肖老第一时间向建行武圣路支行核实情况，但直至一审庭审时，建行武圣路支行也未能提供案涉交易的详细信息，包括转账Form, password comparison process, cardholder signature, surveillance video, and so on.

At the same time, Xiao Lao also reported the case to the public security organs. Although the public security organs did not accept it, evidence such as small tickets provided by him proved that he had always held the bank card involved in the case.

Xiao Lao pointed out that it is difficult for the cardholders to use the same bank card to operate the two places, and there is no evidence to prove that the cardholder has the situation of entrusting others to withdraw money from other places and deliberately or major leaks. The reason why other people can use the card for transactions indicate that such bank cards issued by CCB Wusheng Road Sub -branch do not have unique recognition and non -copyright, which also proves that this type of CCB Wusheng Road Branch is issued. There are certain security risks in bank cards and bank card trading systems.

"Several issues of the Supreme People's Court on Trial of Cases of Civil Disputes on Bank Card" mentioned that "Cardholders claim that dispute transactions are fake card stolen or online stealing transactions, they can provide effective legal documents and bank card transactions in real cards. Location, trading behavior, account transaction details, transaction notifications, alarm records, reporting loss records and other evidence materials to proof. "

The court of second instance believes that in this case, Xiao Lao applied for a bank card at the Wusheng Road Sub -branch of the Construction Bank and set up a transaction password. In general, the transaction of the bank card involved in the case should be determined by his own transaction. According to the above judicial interpretation, Xiao Lao advocated that the bank card involved in the case was stolen, and preliminary evidence should be provided to prove it, but it did not submit any evidence that the bank card department was stolen in the case of the case was not submitted.

The court of the second instance further confirmed that the specific time of the transaction involved was 9:16 38 seconds on January 27, 2019. At 9:16:54 on January 27, 2019, the Wusheng Road Sub -branch of the Construction Bank sends a SMS message involved in the case of Xiao Lao, as follows: "Your Financial Card 1164 on January 27th, 9:16, inter -bank other channels across banks on January 27th. Consumption expenditure is RMB 1015700.00, and the balance of life is 13058.89 yuan [Construction Bank]. From February 19, 2019 to April 28, 2019, the Wusheng Road Sub -branch of the Construction Bank sends 7 transaction prompts to Xiao Lao. In the first instance, Xiao Lao recognized the text messages sent by the Wusheng Road Sub -branch of the Construction Bank. In the second instance, the mobile phone he used was an elderly machine. Due to functional restrictions, he did not see the transaction prompt SMS.

The court of the second instance pointed out that when the public security organs reported the case of Xiao Lao's report, that is, the so -called stolen facts were not identified by the criminal judicial procedure, Xiao Lao did not provide evidence to prove that the real card was not in the trading place when the transaction occurred, and it did not provide it at the place of transaction, and it did not provide it at the place. Construction Bank Wusheng Road Sub -branch sent a transaction to prompt evidence of the alarm or loss within the reasonable time after the SMS. The court of first instance believes that it is not inappropriate to confirm that the transaction involved is not the operation of the old man.

Pay attention to bank transaction prompt SMS

In this case, the elderly found that more than 100 million yuan in their bank cards "disappeared" was several months after the transaction, and the bank sent a prompt message to the old man 16 seconds after the transaction.

The court of second instance believes that one of the important functions of the transaction reminder SMS is to remind the cardholder to confirm whether the transaction is its own transaction, so that the cardholder can take measures to prevent or reduce the loss caused by the non -personal transaction as soon as possible, and at the same time make the cardholder holder the cardholder Can take measures as soon as possible to save evidence. In judicial practice, a large number of stolen cardholders have taken measures such as alarm, loss, and automatic teller transactions in a reasonable time after receiving the transaction prompt SMS. The preliminary evidence proves that the relevant transactions are not what they do.

The court of second instance pointed out that in this case, the Wusheng Road Sub -branch of Construction Bank reminded Xiao Lao to remind Xiao Lao 16 seconds after the transaction involved in the transaction, which states that the transaction time, expenditure amount and account balance. After the transaction involved to May 2019, the Wusheng Road Sub -branch of the Construction Bank sends 7 transaction prompts to Xiao Lao, which includes transaction time, transaction amount and account balance. During this period, as long as Xiao Lao pays a little attention to any transaction prompt, it should not be difficult to find the fact that the account balance has changed huge changes.

The court believes that Xiao Lao advocated that the functional restrictions on the elderly have caused him to not see the transaction prompt SMS, but his claims are contrary to the common sense of life and did not provide evidence to prove that the court is difficult to accept. Even if the claim is true, the failure to check the SMS in time is still caused by its own reasons, so the adverse consequences that cannot be preserved in time after the transaction occurred should still be borne by Xiao Lao. The court of the second instance finally rejected the appeal and maintained the original sentence.

Zhongxin Jingwei dialed the Customer Service telephone consultation of the Construction Bank. According to the customer service staff, if the bank card opened the SMS reminder business, the SMS reminder will be sent after the transaction. The situation of consumption. However, if the transaction involves risks, or the national anti -fraud center detects account risks, customers may be reminded by phone.

How to judge whether the transaction is risky? The customer service said that it is necessary to see if the account's account is a suspicious account. If it is a suspicious account trading, it will contact customers. For example, if there is a suspicion of a third -party POS machine, it will also call to notify the customer.

The customer service reminds that if the customer holds a type of bank card, the mobile banking has a maximum of 500,000 yuan in transfer and a single -day limit of 1 million yuan. If you swipe the card through the POS machine, there is no transaction limit. Others, the other party can use the card and password to remove 1 million yuan through the POS machine. If the customer is worried about being stolen, you can go to the account opening line to set up a limit, but the cardholder's transaction may be limited.

The above customer service said that try not to lend your bank card to others. If the card has been borrowed, and the other party knows the password of the bank card, it is recommended to report the card or reissue it to the outlet.

Huang Dazhi, a researcher at the Star Financial Research Institute, told Zhongxin Jingwei that for large transfer and consumption, banks could only start with three aspects through provenance, interception in the event, and reminding afterwards. In terms of pre -verification, first of all, bank cards generally have limit limit. When opening the card or when applying for mobile banking, a limit will be set; second, the bank will also adjust the limit of the bank card's transaction frequency and transaction quota in real time. For example, if you often consume small consumption or do not use cards for a long time, the limit may be lower; third, when real -time transactions are performed, bank risk control will check whether there are suspicious transactions, such as if tens of yuan consumption may only need fingerprints, passwords, etc. If large consumption may also conduct SMS verification, face recognition, etc., that is, to generate weak verification and strong verification based on different levels, when the quota is risky or risk of risk control monitoring, the final final will be triggered Back to visit.

Huang Dazhi also mentioned that in terms of incidents, if the customer's transfer and consumption, if you want to transfer to a risk account, the bank may also intercept in real time.In terms of after -the -time measures, Huang Dazhi believes that current banks have relatively fewer afterwards, and banks should also strengthen their post -event reminder work in the future, especially for some elderly groups.Wen: Wei Wei

Source: Zhongxin Jingwei

- END -