>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Shanghai No.7 Construction Co., Ltd. v. Hainan Branch of the Bank of Communications (Case of Dispute over Damages for the False Claim of Deposits)
上海市第七建筑工程公司诉交通银行海南分行存款被冒领损害赔偿纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Property
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 11-27-1998
  • Procedural status: Trial at First Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 5,2000

Shanghai No.7 Construction Co., Ltd. v. Hainan Branch of the Bank of Communications (Case of Dispute over Damages for the False Claim of Deposits)
(Case of Dispute over Damages for the False Claim of Deposits)
上海市第七建筑工程公司诉交通银行海南分行存款被冒领损害赔偿纠纷案

Shanghai No.7 Construction Co., Ltd. v. Hainan Branch of the Bank of Communications
(Case of Dispute over Damages for the False Claim of Deposits)

 

上海市第七建筑工程公司诉交通银行海南分行存款被冒领损害赔偿纠纷案

BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: Hainan Subsidiary of Shanghai No.7 Construction Co., Ltd. 原告:上海市第七建筑工程公司海南公司。
Legal Representative: Ling Lifu, general manager of this subsidiary. 法定代表人:凌利福,经理。
Authorized Agent: Wang Xurong and Zeng Ying, attorneys-at-law of New Orient Law Firm. 委托代理人:王绪荣、曾缨,新东方律师事务所律师。
Defendant: Hainan Branch of the Bank of Communications. 被告:交通银行海南分行。
Legal Representative: Quan Jushan, head of this branch bank. 法定代表人:全巨山,行长。
Authorized Agent: Guo Jianjun, attorney-at-law of Hainan Shenghe Law Firm. 委托代理人:郭健君,圣合律师事务所律师。
Hainan Subsidiary of Shanghai No.7 Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Construction Company) brought a lawsuit before the People's Court of Xinhua District, Haikou Municipality, Hainan Province against Hainan Branch of the Bank of Communications (hereinafter referred to as Hainan BOC) for the dispute over damages for the false claim of deposits. 原告上海市第七建筑工程公司海南公司(以下简称建筑公司)因与被告交通银行海南分行(以下简称海南交行)发生存款被冒领损害赔偿纠纷,向海南省海口市新华区人民法院提起诉讼。
Construction Company complained that: Hainan BOC failed to strictly check the seal when transferring accounts, and caused the deposits of Construction Company to be falsely claimed by someone else. Construction Company pleaded the court to order Hainan BOC to compensate the 657,000 yuan of deposits as well as the 134,657.64 yuan of interests. 原告建筑公司诉称:被告海南交行在办理转帐业务时没有严格审查印鉴,致使我公司的存款被他人冒领。请求判令被告赔偿我公司被冒领的存款人民币65.7万元及利息损失134657.64元。
Hainan BOC defended that: the deposits of Construction Company were falsely claimed by the criminal suspect in the anonym of Ding Zhong, who used photocopy documents to draw the money. When handing the said business, Hainan BOC had carried out careful check by folding according to the banking practice as and settlement provisions. Just because the criminal suspect adopted a method of crime beyond the identification ability of Hainan BOC, even if the professions in the public security organ would have difficulty in identifying such a crime, the criminal suspect succeeded. Therefore, Hainan BOC had fulfilled its duties and had no fault, and should not assume the civil liability of compensation. Construction Company did not keep its own seals properly and thus provided criminals with the opportunity to commit a crime, so it should assume the liability for its own faults. 被告海南交行辩称:原告的存款是由化名丁中的犯罪嫌疑人利用复印文的方法冒领的。在办理此项业务中,我行已根据银行的惯例和结算规定以折角核对的方法进行了认真审查。只是由于犯罪嫌疑人使用的犯罪方法超出我们的鉴别能力范围,既使是公安部门的专业人员鉴别起来也存在较大困难,所以才使其犯罪得逞。因此,我行已尽到责任,不存在过错,不应承担赔偿损失的民事责任。原告对自己的印鉴保管不善,给犯罪分子提供了作案的机会,应当承担过错责任。
Upon trial, the People's Court of Xinhua District found that: 海口市新华区人民法院经审理查明:
Construction Company opened a deposit account at Hainan BOC with the number of 0141123090. On November 4, 1995, the criminal suspect used the forged “Special Financial Seal of Hainan Subsidiary of Shanghai No.7 Construction Co., Ltd.” and the seal of “Shen Weizhong” as the certificates to Hainan BOC and bought a cheque for transfer. On November 9, the criminal suspect opened a cheque for transfer with the number of 032178701 and submitted it to Hainan BOC, and the staff member of Hainan BOC, upon examination, transferred 657,000 yuan from the account of Construction Company to the No. 032178701 account opened by Ding Zhong at Haikou Branch of the Bank of Construction. On November 22, when Construction Company inquired about the balance of deposits at Hainan BOC, it found that its deposits had been transferred out, and immediately reported it to Hainan BOC. On November 24, Hainan BOC reported the case to the Public Security Bureau of Haikou Municipality. On November 8, 1996, the Public Security Bureau of Haikou Municipality issued the No. 66 [1996] Appraisal Letter, which affirmed that: the seals of “Special Financial Seal of Hainan Subsidiary of Shanghai No.7 Construction Co., Ltd.” and “Shen Weizhong” left on the No. 0359754 cheque for transfer and the certificate for buying the cheque on November 4, 1995 were the stamps forged by way of printing. In the investigation, the Public Security Bureau of Haikou Municipality recovered 75,000 yuan as falsely claimed but had not returned it to Hainan BOC yet, and the remaining money had not be recovered and the criminal suspect had not been arrested up to the present. 原告建筑公司在被告海南交行处开设有存款帐户,帐号0141123090。1995年11月4日,犯罪嫌疑人利用伪造的“上海市第七建筑工程公司海南公司财务专用章”印章和“沈维忠”私章向海南交行出具证明,购买了转帐支票一本。11月9日,犯罪嫌疑人又使用上述伪造的印章开立了NO:0359754转帐支票交海南交行,经承办人员审查后予以办理,从建筑公司的帐户中转款65.7万元,汇入海口市建行帐号032178701名为丁中的帐户内。11月22日,建筑公司到海南交行查询存款余额时,才发现自己的存款已被人划走,随即向海南交行反映。11月24日,海南交行向海口市公安局报案。1996年11月8日,海南省公安厅出具琼公刑技(文)字(96)第66号文检鉴定书,确认NO:0359754转帐支票和1995年11月4日购转帐支票的证明上所留的“上海市第七建筑工程公司海南公司财务专用章”印章和“沈维忠”名章,都是采用印刷方法伪造的印文。海口市公安局在侦查中,追回被冒领的款项7.5万元尚未退回海南交行处,剩余的款项至今未追回,案犯至今未抓获。
The aforesaid facts were affirmed by the No. 0359754 cheque for transfer and the certificate for purchasing the cheque as kept by Hainan BOC, the No. 66 [1996] Appraisal Letter of the Public Security Bureau of Haikou Municipality, the certification issued by the Public Security Bureau of Haikou Municipality as well as the statements of the parties involved, and thus could be ascertained. 以上事实,有海南交行保存的NO:0359754转帐支票和购买支票证明、海南省公安厅(96)第66号鉴定书、海口市公安局的证明,以及当事人的陈述等证据证实,足以认定。
The People's Court of Xinhua District, Haikou Municipality held that: 海口市新华区人民法院认为:
Construction Company had opened a deposit account in Hainan BOC, and their rights and obligations were clearly stipulated. Since Hainan BOC had accepted the deposits of Construction Company, it should be obliged to guarantee the safety of such deposits. Now the deposits of Construction Company were falsely claimed by any other, which showed that Hainan BOC failed to exercise its duty and thus was faulty. According to Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 106 卡在了奇怪的地方of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, Hainan BOC should compensate Construction Company with the said 657,000 yuan as well as the interests thereof calculated on the basis of the interest rate for current deposits. 原告建筑公司在被告海南交行处开户存款,双方的权利、义务关系明确。海南交行既然接受了建筑公司的存款,就有义务保障该存款的安全。建筑公司的存款现已被他人冒领,说明海南交行没有尽到自己的责任,是有过错的。依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百零六条卧槽不见了第一、二款的规定,海南交行对建筑公司被冒领的65.7万元存款,以及该存款按活期存款利率应得的利息,给予赔偿。
The “check by folding” was a method for identifying the authenticity of seals as prescribed in the Formalities for Banking Settlement and Accounting, which were the bylaws for the banking industry and were only binding to the working staff in banks. Along with the development of science and technology, criminals would adopt more and more means to commit a crime, correspondingly, a bank should continue to improve and enhance its ability to distinguish the true from the false, so as to fully guarantee the safety of clients' deposits. If a bank voluntarily accepted the clients' deposits while continuously enhancing its ability to distinguish the true from the false, once the said deposits were falsely claimed by anyone else with forged seals, the bank should assume the liability of compensation. In this case, Hainan BOC rejected to assume the liability of compensation for the reasons that its staff member had abided by the bylaws on the check by folding and still did not find that the seals were forged, and it thus had no fault with the false claim of deposits, however, such reasons could not established. 折角核对是现行《银行结算会计核算手续》规定的鉴别印章真伪方法。该规定属于银行内部规定,只对银行工作人员有约束作用。随着科技的发展,犯罪分子的作案手段越来越多。银行必须针对这种现状,不断改进、提高自己的防伪鉴别能力,以充分保障客户存款的安全。如果银行在不断提高自己的防伪鉴别能力时自愿接受客户的存款,这些存款一旦被他人以伪造的印章冒领,银行必须承担赔偿责任。被告海南交行以其工作人员已经按照规定履行了折角核对的工作制度,没有发现印章是伪造的,对存款被冒领主观上没有过错为由,拒绝承担赔偿责任,理由不能成立。
JUDGMENT 
In sum, the People's Court of Xinhua District rendered the following judgment on November 27, 1998: 综上,海口市新华区人民法院于1998年11月27日判决:
Hainan BOC should, within 10 days upon the effectiveness of this judgment, compensate Construction Company with the said 657,000 yuan as well as the interests thereof calculated on the basis of the interest rate of the bank for current deposits from November 9, 1995 to the date when the money is paid off. If it fails to pay the debts within the time limit, it should pay in double the interests of the debts for the period of deferred payment. 被告海南交行本判决生效之日起10日内,赔偿原告建筑公司65.7万元,并偿付从1995年11月9日起至该款还清之日止按银行同期活期存款利率计付的利息。如逾期偿付,则加倍支付迟延履行期间的债务利息。
The 12,930 yuan of litigation costs should be borne by Hainan BOC. 诉讼费12930元,由被告海南交行负担。
After the judgment of the first instance was announced, neither party involved filed an appeal.

 一审宣判后,双方当事人均未上诉。
 

     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese