Depositors bank card deposit theft incidents who should be responsible for

The question of bank card security is increasingly a headache for savers and banks. Savers save money to banks for safety purposes, only to discover suddenly that their bank cards are missing and many are being stolen elsewhere.　　After the incident, depositors and banks are inevitably in court, the verdict is not the same, or the banks take full responsibility, or 50 dozen.　　The frequent theft of bank card deposits reflects the lack of bank security supervision and depositors ' confidentiality, and the results of different judgments in similar cases highlight the defects of the bank and Depositor's responsibility-sharing mechanism for the theft of deposits. Large-area deposit theft affects depositors ' bank card reputation February 15, 2010 21:10, Hainan Province Wenchang Chang-Chong Town Primary school teacher Lin Hongbong's mobile phone received the bank card deposit was taken information, Mr. Lin immediately reported, after the confirmation of its Wenchang branch in the Agricultural Bank of the pay card deposit has been stolen. Immediately thereafter, from February 16 to 22nd, another bank account deposit was stolen from an ATM machine outside the Hainan Province area. Lin Hongbong said, Wenchang City cultural and educational district has 19 people to deposit stolen, the amount of more than 250,000 yuan. In addition, dozens of people such as teachers, civil servants and retired cadres at the Agricultural Bank's Wenchang sub-branches, such as the Wenchang town, the town of the city, Jin Shan Zhen, Chang-zhen, Dong Ge town, Mai town and so on, were also stolen.　　Verified by the public security organs, a total of 78 people (Haikou 1 people, Wenchang 77 people) deposit was stolen, the amount of 950,000 involved. The theft of such a large area of deposits is rare, but the frequent theft of bank cards is not uncommon. April 9, 2010, Hangzhou, Mr. Ma bank card was in Dongguan, Shenzhen, such as brushing away 190,000 yuan, the bank said they are not responsible for the regulations, the police station also said that the need to steal brush to the police station to file; August 15, 2009, Liuzhou City, Guangxi Province, Liujiang County a depositor bank card is still in the hands,　　Canet more than 710,000 yuan deposit was stolen outside the foreign consumption, the first instance court decided the bank depositors each negative 50% responsibility; April 2009 Guangxi Fangcheng a citizen card's deposit is taken away by other people in different places by the card, the transfer and so on, after the court decides the bank to compensate the depositor 444170 yuan deposit and the interest　　Risk prevention measures are not in place to the theft of incidents in recent years, the number of bank card crime cases are increasing, cardholder and bank disputes and litigation also increased, the bank card security and the responsibility of stolen funds sharing mechanism has become more and more attention. Caofeng, director of the Center for Finance and Securities research at Peking University, believes that the current depositors ' bank card deposits are frequently stolen to prove loopholes in bank safety supervision. Cardholder deposits were stolen mostly because the bank ATM machine was loaded to steal equipment, secretly photographed the bank card information after cloning, and then steal deposits; On the other hand, the bank's secrecy of depositors ' information has not been perfect, and information leaks have bred a hotbed for stealing bank card deposits;　　It can also easily lead to people stealing information in the card. "There is the theft of cards, which seems to have become an unspoken rule in the industry." "Hainan Zheng Kai law firm director lawyer Li Wuping told reporters that bank card deposits stolenTake the case more in the off-site, this shows that the banking system internal collaboration is not tight, will let criminals loopholes.　　There is a certain buffer in the cooperation between the banks, the theft of different places to the case of the cardholder to file, so that after the incident takes a long time to carry out the investigation of cases, no doubt to promote the arrogance of criminals.　　The responsibility and fault of the bank and cardholder to the stolen deposit is very important after the money is stolen, but there is no authoritative responsibility sharing mechanism at present.　　One bank insider told reporters that after the theft of depositors ' bank card deposits, it was difficult to identify the two sides ' faults, because it was difficult for banks to determine the channels through which depositors ' bank card information was leaked, and in some cases it was difficult to rule out the possibility of depositors colluding with others to extort money.　　According to its introduction, the current bank card system security is sufficient to prevent all known risks, some local courts sentenced to full responsibility of banks may be a one-sided understanding, but also let the bank security system face lost, the bank is now in a vulnerable position. Perfecting Bank and Cardholder's reasonable responsibility sharing mechanism the theft of bank card deposits has placed the bank security system at the forefront of public opinion, and the security technology of bank card and the way of supervision have become the target of criticism. Caofeng, director of the Center for Finance and Securities research at Peking University, argues that the frequent theft of bank card deposits is enough to make it necessary for banks to re-examine their security systems and regulatory channels. As a bank, the security system should be upgraded constantly to prevent the common theft.　　The system should also be reformed, in particular, to form a strict identification mechanism for the identity of depositors, if necessary, through the use of photographs or fingerprints and other biological technology to prevent criminals from taking loopholes. Lawyer Li Wuping that the bank's internal information to the depositors to do more than the authorized party can be viewed, the bank card deposits can not be identified after the fault of both sides of the case, the bank should first pay, and then go to the litigation process.　　If a bank worker or depositor is in collusion with another person to defraud, the loss is to be held by the perpetrator or his or her unit. After the bank card deposit is stolen, the liability party fault cognizance is especially important to the case detection, but it is difficult to identify the procedure, and the responsibility sharing between the bank and the depositor has always been disputed.　　The same is true of "the bank card is not away from the stolen brush" case in some places but different verdict. The bank card is actually the negotiable securities, the bank card manifests is a service contract between the bank and the depositor, the bank card, the card number and the password together constitute a complete depositor identity mark. Since the bank card embodies a service contract relationship between the bank and the depositor, the dispute over the use of the bank card shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the contract law. "Li Xiandong, a professor at the Institute of Economic and Commercial law, argues that depositors are not required to prove that a bank is guilty as long as the money on the card is illegally taken away by others." On the contrary, if the bank wants to shirk its liability, it must prove that the money on the card is taken away because of the depositor's own fault. If someone uses a forged card, even if the card number and password are correct, the silverThe line is also responsible for this. Because, the bank card (with the password) is a kind of right voucher, must produce the real right certificate, namely the original bank card, the holder may request the bank to pay, otherwise, the bank's payment is the default behavior, it must be responsible for its default behavior. On the other hand, banks have no responsibility as long as they pay with real bank cards and passwords.　　The losses caused by this situation can only be borne by the depositors themselves. Li Xiandong said that in the current complex financial environment, the establishment of a bank and cardholder reasonable responsibility to share the mechanism is particularly important. In the absence of evidence that depositors or banks are at fault, it should be considered that depositors and banks are likely to leak, both sides have the burden of proof, but in the content of the evidence, the two can not be the same--depositors as long as the proof that they did not disclose the password and card number to third And banks must prove that their trading systems and security assurances are free of defects. The reason is: the first is the bank as a professional organization and issuer, there are more than depositors to protect security, risk prevention obligations; The second is the bank's trading system with a strong technical and risky, depositors generally can not bear such burden of proof; third, relative to depositors, the bank is in a strong position, the implementation of the presumption of fault, It is fair to increase the burden of proof.