>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Wang Yongsheng v. Nanjing Hexi Sub-branch of the Bank of China Limited (Case of Dispute over Savings Deposit Contract)
王永胜诉中国银行股份有限公司南京河西支行储蓄存款合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Wang Yongsheng v. Nanjing Hexi Sub-branch of the Bank of China Limited (Case of Dispute over Savings Deposit Contract)
(Case of Dispute over Savings Deposit Contract)
王永胜诉中国银行股份有限公司南京河西支行储蓄存款合同纠纷案

Wang Yongsheng v. Nanjing Hexi Sub-branch of the Bank of China Limited
(Case of Dispute over Savings Deposit Contract)@#

[Summary]

@#

Where criminal elements steal the cardnumber, information and password of a depositor's debit card, reproduce a fakedebit card and withdraw or spend money from the debit card, taking advantage ofthe commercial bank's management and maintainance omissions regarding its ATMsand, by installing card readers and camera devices at the entrance ofself-service banking outlets and ATMs, under such circumstances, it shall bedeemed that the commercial bank did not provide a safe and private environment necessaryfor the depositor to engage in transactions at ATMs, and this constitutesbreach of contract. If the depositor makes a claim that the commercial bank isto assume payment obligations under the deposit contract, but the commercialbank argues that the loss of money through the depositor's debit card was causedby criminal acts and that it should not assume civil liability thus arising,the people's court is to refuse to support the bank's defense.

@#

BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Wang Yongsheng, male, age 36, of the Han nationality, manager of Jiangsu Tianmu Construction Group Co., Ltd, and resides at Yagui Garden of Gulou District, Nanjing City.@#
Defendant: Nanjing Hexi Sub-branch of the Bank of China Limited, located at Caochangmen Avenue of Gulou District, Nanjing City.@#
Person in Charge: Feng Nanning, governor of the sub-branch.@#
The plaintiff brought a lawsuit to the Gulou District People's Court of Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province against Nanjing Hexi Sub-branch of the Bank of China Limited (hereinafter referred to as Hexi Sub-branch) for the dispute over a savings deposit contract.@#
The plaintiff claimed that: on October 9, 2007, he got a debit card from Hexi Sub-branch with the card number of 6013821200011990595. At the night of December 2, 2007, he drew 5,000 yuan via the ATM of the South Rehe Road Sub-office in Xiaguan District, and checked the balance, which was 463,942.2 yuan. In the afternoon of December 5, 2007, when he tried to draw 10,000 yuan at Jiangning Sub-office over the counter, he was told by the teller that the balance in his card was about 2,800 yuan. He checked the deposit balance later again and found that another 2,000 yuan was gone. He immediately reported it to Gulou Sub-bureau of Nanjing Public Security Bureau (hereinafter referred to as Gulou Public Security Sub-bureau). Upon investigation, the public security organ found out that three men installed a storage card reader at the automatic door of the self-service bank of South Rehe Road Sub-office in Xiaguan District, and put a camera on the ATM so that they got the password and other information of the plaintiff's debit card. Then they reproduced two fake cards and drew and spent 463,942.2 yuan in Beijing and Jiangxi Province. Tang Hairen, one of the offenders and a party not involved in this case, was arrested by the public security organ later and was sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of 10 years and 6 months and fined 100,000 yuan for the crime of fraud on credit card by the Judgment No.241 [2008] of the Gulou District People's Court of Nanjing City. The sentence has come into legal force. After that, the plaintiff negotiated with Xiaguan Sub-branch for many times. On January 24, 2008, they reached an agreement under which Xiaguan Sub-branch lent 232,000 yuan to the plaintiff to pay salaries to migrant workers so that they would work out a solution after verifying the facts of the case. Since the plaintiff and the defendant have formed a savings deposit contractual relationship, the defendant has the obligation to protect the safety of the plaintiff's money. Due to the ATM security management loopholes of the defendant, the offenders had the opportunity to draw or spend 463,942.2 yuan out of the plaintiff's card with reproduced fake cards, for which the plaintiff has no fault. Therefore, the plaintiff requests that, according to the savings deposit contract concluded by both parties, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff 463,942.2 yuan and the interest incurred from December 4, 2007 to the date of actual payment.@#
......

 

王永胜诉中国银行股份有限公司南京河西支行储蓄存款合同纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
犯罪分子利用商业银行对其自助柜员机管理、维护上的疏漏,通过在自助银行网点门口刷卡处安装读卡器、在柜员机上部安装摄像装置的方式,窃取储户借记卡的卡号、信息及密码,复制假的借记卡,将储户借记卡账户内的钱款支取、消费的,应当认定商业银行没有为在其自助柜员机办理交易的储户提供必要的安全、保密的环境,构成违约。储户诉讼请求商业银行按照储蓄存款合同承担支付责任,商业银行以储户借记卡内的资金短少是由于犯罪行为所致,不应由其承担民事责任为由进行抗辩的,对其抗辩主张人民法院不予支持。@#
@#
原告:王永胜,男,36岁,汉族,江苏天目建设集团有限公司经理,住南京市鼓楼区雅瑰园。@#
被告:中国银行股份有限公司南京河西支行,住所地:南京市鼓楼区草场门大街。@#
负责人:逢南宁,该支行行长。@#
原告王永胜因与被告中国银行股份有限公司南京河西支行(以下简称中行河西支行)发生储蓄存款合同纠纷,向江苏省南京市鼓楼区人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告王永胜诉称:2007年10月9日,原告在被告中行河西支行处申领中行借记卡一张,卡号为6013821200011990595。 2007年12月2日晚,原告到中国银行(以下简称中行)下关热河南路分理处自助银行柜员机(ATM)上取款5000元,并查询存款余额为463 942.2元。2007年12月5日下午,原告在中行江宁分理处准备取款 10 000元时,被柜台营业员告知卡内余额为2800余元。当晚原告再次查询,发现卡内又少了2000元。原告当即向南京市公安局鼓楼分局(以下简称鼓楼公安分局)报案。经公安机关侦查,查明有3名男子在中行下关热河南路分理处自助银行的自动门上安装了存储式读卡装置,并在取款机上安装了探头,籍此获取了原告借记卡的密码及信息资料,然后复制两张伪卡在北京、江西等地取款或消费463 942.2元。后犯罪分子之一、案外人汤海仁被公安机关抓获,并被南京市鼓楼区人民法院以(2008)鼓刑初字第241号刑事判决书认定犯信用卡诈骗罪,判处有期徒刑十年六个月,并处罚金人民币100 000元,该刑事判决已发生法律效力。上述事件发生后,原告多次与中行南京下关支行(以下简称中行下关支行)交涉。2008年1月24日原告与中行下关支行达成协议,由中行下关支行先行借给原告232 000元用于发放部分民工工资,待问题查明后再进一步解决。原告与被告之间存在储蓄存款合同关系,被告有义务保护原告的资金安全。由于被告对自助柜员机的安全管理存在漏洞,给犯罪分子留下可乘之机,导致原告卡内存款463 942.2元被犯罪分子用伪造的借记卡取走或消费,对此原告并无过失。请求判令被告按照双方签订的储蓄存款合同支付原告存款 463 942.2元,以及上述款项自2007年12月4日至实际支付之日止的利息。@#
原告王永胜提供以下证据:@#
1.南京市鼓楼区人民法院(2008)鼓刑初字第241号刑事判决书一份,用以证明犯罪分子汤海仁因犯信用卡诈骗罪,被依法判处有期徒刑十年六个月,并处罚金人民币100 000元的事实;@#
2.6013821200011990595号借记卡交易清单一份,用以证明涉案借记卡账户交易情况;@#
3.2008年1月24日原告与中行下关支行达成的协议一份,用以证明中行下关支行先行借给原告232 000元用于支付民工工资的事实。@#
被告中行河西支行辩称:首先,南京市鼓楼区人民法院(2008)鼓刑初字第241号刑事判决书确认犯罪金额为428 709.50元,对在北京从涉案借记卡账户中分14笔支取的35 140元未予认定,该14笔款项不排除原告王永胜自行支取的可能,被告只认可刑事判决所认定的犯罪金额。其次,原告借记卡内的资金短少是由于犯罪行为所致,对于犯罪行为给原告造成的资金损失,被告不应承担民事责任。被告在为原告提供服务的过程中严格遵守监管部门的相关规定,所设自助银行网点均有符合规范的安全防范设施,被告亦通过多种形式提醒储户妥善保管借记卡密码。原告借记卡账户内的存款被盗,是因原告没有妥善保管密码,原告自身具有过错。综上,请求法院在查明事实的基础上依法判决。@#
被告中行河西支行提交以下证据:@#
1.南京市公安局2007年12月24日颁发的安全防范设施合格证一份,中行向储户公示的取款机操作指南、柜员机界面提示的内容,用以证明被告履行了保护储户存款安全的义务;@#
2.借记卡业务登记表(附管理协议书及章程),用以证明原告王永胜办理借记卡的具体情况,以及被告已经合理提示“持卡人应妥善保管密码,因密码泄露而造成的风险及损失由持卡人本人承担”的事实;@#
3.银行对账单、交易明细表各一份,用以证明涉案借记卡账户的交易情况;@#
4.中行下关支行向人民法院出具的申请书一份,用以证明中行下关支行同意其出借给王永胜的232 000元作为中行河西支行的出借款在本案中予以抵扣。@#
南京市鼓楼区人民法院依法调取了以下证据:@#
1.鼓楼公安分局对案外人汤海仁、原告王永胜的询问笔录,用以证明汤海仁等人通过安装读卡器、具备摄像功能的MP4等方式,窃得原告涉案借记卡信息及密码后复制两张假卡提取或消费的事实;@#
2.中行北京天缘公寓支行的交易明细表,用以证明卡号为6013821200011990595的借记卡于2007年12月3日22时22分9秒至2007年12月4日0时33分53秒期间在北京天缘公寓支行所管理的自助银行柜员机上14次取款35 000元,发生异地取款手续费140元的事实。@#
南京市鼓楼区人民法院依法组织了质证。被告中行河西支行对原告王永胜提供的证据1、2、3的真实性均无异议,但认为上述证据均与被告应否承担民事责任没有关联性。原告对被告提供的证据1、2、3、4的真实性均无异议,但认为证据1、2不能证明中行提供的自助银行交易场所能够保障储户的资金安全。南京市鼓楼区人民法院经质证,对原、被告提供证据的真实性均予以认定。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥700.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
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