Zhou Peidong v. Agricultural Bank of China, Jiangdong Branch
(Case of Dispute over Savings Contract)@#
@#
@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Zhou Peidong, male, 36 years old, employee of the Hengyang Railway Material Supply Section, resides at Jianguangli, Zhuhui District, Hengyang City, Hunan Province.@#
Defendant: Agricultural Bank of China, Jiangdong Branch of Hengyang City, Hunan Province, located at Hubei Road, Zhuhui District, Hengyang City, Hunan Province.@#
Chief: Ji Jianping, president of the branch.@#
The plaintiff, Zhou Peidong, brought a lawsuit to the People's Court of Zhuhui District, Hengyang City, Hunan Province against the defendant, Agricultural Bank of China (hereinafter referred to as ABC), Jiangdong Branch of Hengyang City, Hunan Province (hereinafter referred to as Jiangdong Branch) over the dispute of a savings contract between them.@#
The plaintiff alleged that: when he, with his Kins Credit Card of ABC in hand, was going to withdraw a cash of 54,600 yuan at the railway station sub-office of the defendant to pay for the goods of somebody else he guaranteed, he was rejected by the bank employee at the counter, who insisted that he should draw the money on an ATM. Even though Zhou reiterated that he did not know how to use the card on the ATM, and asked the employee to withdraw cash for him but was refused, and was told that he should do it by himself according to the instructions on the ATM. As the plaintiff did not know that it was not allowed to withdraw more than 5000 yuan once on ATM as well as the operational procedure, he could not withdraw any money on the ATM. The plaintiff turned around to ask for help from the employees, but nobody paid any attention. At the same time, somebody took the chance, took out and changed the Kins Credit Card of the plaintiff without the awareness of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not aware that the Kins Credit Card had been changed until he went to the counter with the changed card in his hand to withdraw money, then he immediately asked the employee to go through the procedure of reporting the loss and stopping the payment for him. The employee asked the plaintiff to provide the number of the card or the deposit book. As the card was changed and he could not recall the number of the card and did not bring the deposit book with him, the plaintiff told the employee that he could only provide his ID card and the password and was told that he had no other choice but to go to the bank where he opened the account to conduct the procedure of loss reporting. When the plaintiff arrived at the bank where he opened the account, he got to know that the deposit in the Kins Credit Card had been withdrawn for four times with a total amount of 53,006 yuan. It was due to the fact that the employee of the defendant refused to draw money at the counter for the plaintiff, help and guide the plaintiff to withdraw on ATM and refused to accept reporting of the loss and stopping the payment according to the password of the credit card that the deposit of the plaintiff was stolen. Thus the plaintiff pledged the court to adjudicate that the defendant shall compensate the plaintiff 53,006 yuan of economic loss and 10,000 yuan of the loss due to emotional disturbance and bear the legal cost of the case.@#
．．．．．．

周培栋诉江东农行储蓄合同纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
对于商业银行法规定的保证支付、取款自由、为储户保密应当进行全面理解。保证支付不仅是指银行不得拖延、拒绝支付，还包括银行应当以适当的方式履行支付义务；取款自由，不仅包括取款时间、取款数额上的自由，在有柜台和自动取款机等多种取款方式的情况下，还应当包括选择取款方式的自由；为储户保密不仅是指银行应当对储户已经提供的个人信息保密，也包括应当为到银行办理交易的储户提供必要的安全、保密的环境。@#
银行如果没有履行上述义务，即构成违约，应当承担相应违约责任。@#
@#
原告：周培栋，男，36岁，衡阳铁路材料供应段职工，住湖南省衡阳市珠晖区建光里。@#
被告：中国农业银行湖南衡阳市江东支行。住所地：湖南省衡阳市珠晖区湖北路。@#
负责人：计剑平，该支行行长。@#
原告周培栋因与被告中国农业银行湖南衡阳市江东支行（以下简称江东农行）发生储蓄合同纠纷，向湖南省衡阳市珠晖区人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告诉称：原告持农行金穗借记卡去被告下属的火车站分理处，准备取现金54600元，以清偿为他人担保的货款。当原告向柜台营业员提出取款要求时，营业员拒绝服务，让原告到自动取款机上取款。原告多次向营业员声明不会刷卡，请求为其办理取款手续。但该营业员仍加以拒绝，说“取款机上有提示，一看就明白”。由于原告不知道在自动取款机上一次取款不得超过5000元，且也不懂操作方法，导致取不出款来。原告转身大声向营业员求助，但无人理睬。此时有人趁机将原告的金穗借记卡取出并调换，原告未发觉。原告持借记卡再次在柜台取款时，才知道借记卡被调包，当即请求营业员为原告办理挂失止付手续。营业员要求原告提供卡号或存折号。原告因借记卡已被调包，卡号记不清，存折没有带在身上，只好告诉营业员只有身份证和密码。营业员称：“没有办法，你只能到开户行办理挂失。”当原告赶到开户行办理挂失时，才知道借记卡里的存款已被人分四次共盗取53　006元。由于被告的营业员拒绝为原告提供柜台取款，拒绝帮助指导原告刷卡，拒绝按密码为原告办理挂失止付，才使原告的存款被盗取。请求判令被告赔偿原告的经济损失53006元，精神损失1万元，并负担本案诉讼费用。@#
原告提交以下主要证据：@#
1.衡阳铁路物资公司出具的证明，用以证明周培栋账户内的款，是其为客户担保后客户给的货款。@#
2.周孝政、封少华的证词，主要内容是：封少华开车为周孝政到衡阳铁路物资公司提货时，因货款没有到账，公司不让拉货；周孝政找到在衡阳铁路材料供应段工作的周培栋，由周培栋担保并出具欠条，才拉走货物；回来后，周孝政按周培栋给的账号汇去货款。@#
3.中国农业银行存折，用以证明双方当事人之间存在储蓄合同关系。@#
4.中国农业银行金穗借记卡章程，用以证明凭密码即可挂失该卡，不是必须去开户行挂失。@#
5.万孝喜的证言，主要内容是：受周培栋雇用，开摩托车拉周培栋去江东农行取款；在等待周培栋取款过程中，看到周培栋先是要求在柜台取款，遭拒绝后到自动取款机取款；因取不出款来呼喊营业员帮助，但无人理睬；发现借记卡被调包后，周培栋要求挂失，营业员要求持存折去开户行挂失。@#
6.原告拍摄的自动取款机照片，用以证明该取款机周围没有防护措施。@#
被告辩称：原告到被告处取款时，没有说明自己要取多少款。因业务较忙，营业员建议原告到自动取款机上办理，并向其告知：自动取款机屏幕上有提示，跟着提示操作即可。此后发现原告的借记卡被调包后，营业员当即要求原告办理挂失手续，但原告拒绝，以至该借记卡内存款被盗取。这张借记卡内被盗取的存款是公款，周培栋不是这笔款的所有权人。由周培栋作为原告提起诉讼，主体资格不适，应当驳回其起诉。即使主体资格适合，发案后，原告与被告都曾就此事向公安机关报案，目前该案正在侦查阶段，根据最高人民法院《关于在审理经济纠纷案件中涉及经济犯罪嫌疑若干问题的规定》第十二条，本案应中止审理。再者，借记卡是在原告持有过程中遗失的，密码也是原告不慎泄露的，根据《金穗借记卡章程》的规定，损失应由持卡人自己承担。@#
被告提交以下主要证据：@#
1.中国农业银行金穗借记卡章程及申请表，用以证明章程中规定因借记卡遗失和密码失密造成的损失由持卡人自己承担，这一点已经向申请人明确告知。@#
2.金穗借记卡样本、存折后的“注意事项”，用以证明银行已向储户明确告知要保护好借记卡和密码。@#
3．火车站分理处营业厅的自动取款机照片，用以证明在该取款机上，有“您的密码如同钱包，注意保密，以防被窃”的警示语。@#
4.周培栋填写的挂失申请书和周培栋存款被盗取时间的传真件，用以证明周培栋办理书面挂失手续时，其账户内存款已被盗取。@#
5.周培栋取款时的录像资料（无声音），用以证明周培栋共到柜台前两次，第二次只与营业员争吵几句就走，没有及时要求挂失止付。@#
6.火车站分理处营业员彭小玲的证言，用以证明在知道借记卡被调包后，周培栋没有及时要求挂失，并且在营业员主动叫其办理挂失手续的情况下仍拒绝挂失。@#
衡阳市珠晖区人民法院经审理查明：@#
2003年12月10日，原告周培栋在被告江东农行下属的乐群里分理处开户，申领了中国农业银行发行的金穗借记卡。中国农业银行制定的《金穗借记卡章程》第五条规定：“持卡人凭金穗借记卡的密码可在中国农业银行指定的特约商户购物消费；在中国农业银行指定的营业机构存取现金、办理转账。”第六条规定：“持卡人凭金穗借记卡和密码可在自动柜员机上取现，每日累计金额不超过5000元，次数不超过5次。”第九条规定：“金穗借记卡被盗或遗失，持卡人可凭个人密码办理电话挂失。持卡人办理电话挂失后，应及时补办书面挂失手续。”第十一条规定：“持卡人必须妥善保存和正确使用金穗借记卡，领到金穗借记卡时应立即修改密码，凡密码相符的交易均视为合法交易。持卡人应将金穗借记卡与密码分开保管，因卡片遗失或密码失密造成的资金损失，由持卡人自行承担。”@#
．．．．．．