Exclusive: the customer is sleeping, but the deposit is less than 80000. Ping An Bank says that the customer keeps it improperly and refuses to pay for it

category:Hot
 Exclusive: the customer is sleeping, but the deposit is less than 80000. Ping An Bank says that the customer keeps it improperly and refuses to pay for it


Wake up from lunch break and find that the deposit is less than 80000

According to a judicial document, Ms. Shi opened a debit card (magnetic stripe card) at Shenzhen Shajing branch of Ping An Bank and set a transaction password. At 14:00 on June 26, 2017, the debit card involved withdrew RMB 19000 from the ATM in Hefei Economic Development Zone, Anhui Province twice, and spent 68300 yuan in Luyang District, Hefei City, Anhui Province three times. At the time of withdrawal and consumption, Ping An Bank issued a withdrawal and consumption notice to Ms. Shi. Ms. Shi was sleeping at home that day. At about 14:40 p.m., she saw the cash withdrawal and consumption notice and immediately reported the stolen deposit to the police station.

Ms. Shi believes that her deposit was stolen by others in other places when her debit card was on her. As a financial institution, Shenzhen Shajing sub branch of Ping An Bank obviously failed to fulfill the deposit contract obligation of protecting the safety of depositors funds, and should bear the responsibility for breach of contract. To this end, Ms. Shi sued the court and demanded that Shenzhen Shajing branch of Ping An Bank compensate the deposit principal of 87300 yuan and the loss of interest, as well as the transportation expenses and lawyers fees of 6300 yuan.

The bank said the customer was not kept properly

Shenzhen Shajing sub branch of Ping An Bank said it strictly abides by national laws and regulations of the peoples Bank of China and the Banking Regulatory Commission to perform safety supervision obligations on depositors funds. As a depositor, Ms. Shi has the obligation to keep the bank card and password properly. During the transaction, the card reader provided the information consistent with Ms. Shis bank card information and used the password to conduct the transaction. Therefore, the loss caused by password leakage or improper storage of the card should be borne by Ms. Shi.

(function(){( window.slotbydup=window .slotbydup||[]).push({id:u5811557,container:ssp_ 5811557, async:true }The court held that the cardholder needs to enter the correct password for withdrawal or consumption through ATM. Shenzhen Shajing branch of Ping An Bank failed to effectively identify the forged bank card, that is, it did not fully perform its security obligations, resulting in the deposit in the bank card involved in the case to be stolen and swiped. As the custodian of the password, Ms. Shi, without any evidence showing that it was the bank password leakage, our court presumes that Ms. Shis improper custody of her password has led to the leakage of the password, which provides an opportunity for others to steal, and also has fault in the case of stolen deposit. The court held that the specific liability ratio of Ping An Bank and Ms. Shi was 70% and 30%, and the court ruled that Ms. Shi of Shenzhen Shajing sub branch of Ping An Bank should compensate 61110 yuan of deposit principal and interest loss. (editor in charge: Li Xiumei) source of this article: Zhao Yaping, editor in charge of financial network of operator_ NN9005

The court held that the cardholder needs to enter the correct password for withdrawal or consumption through ATM. Shenzhen Shajing branch of Ping An Bank failed to effectively identify the forged bank card, that is, it did not fully perform its security obligations, resulting in the deposit in the bank card involved in the case to be stolen and swiped. As the custodian of the password, Ms. Shi, without any evidence showing that it was the bank password leakage, our court presumes that Ms. Shis improper custody of her password has led to the leakage of the password, which provides an opportunity for others to steal, and also has fault in the case of stolen deposit.

The court held that the specific liability ratio of Ping An Bank and Ms. Shi was 70% and 30%, and the court ruled that Ms. Shi of Shenzhen Shajing sub branch of Ping An Bank should compensate 61110 yuan of deposit principal and interest loss.

(editor in charge: Li Xiumei)