NET silver stolen first case bank responsibility 90%

Intermediary transaction http://www.aliyun.com/zixun/aggregation/6858.html ">seo diagnose Taobao guest stationmaster buy cloud host technology Hall

Who should be responsible for the bizarre disappearance of 100,000 yuan of cash in depositors ' bank accounts? The first domestic Internet bank theft case that lasted for 3 years has finally come to an end. Wenzhou rejected the Agricultural Bank of China's appeal, maintaining Yongjia County court, that is, Agricultural Bank of Yongjia Branch compensation depositors 90% losses, depositors bear 10% losses. Wenzhou Yongjia People's court staff Tang yesterday to the "Daily economic news" Reporter said the case has been concluded, "guaranteed, no change."

100,000 dollars stolen through net silver

In October 2002, Hong Rongyao, who did business in Yongjia, Wenzhou, had a debit card at the local Agricultural Bank's office to facilitate cash withdrawals. In February 2005, Hong Rongyao found the debit card was 102,500 Yuan, and did not withdraw money, and then reported to the local police.

After investigation, November 22, 2004, some people fake "Hong Rongyao" name forged identity card, to the Agricultural Bank of Wenzhou branch opened the online banking business, and access to online Banking customer certificate and password. After the successful registration, the criminal suspect on February 2, 2005 through the online bank, successfully Hong Rongyao debit card funds within two times to transfer to other people's accounts, and then received the money.

Because the money is not recovered, Hong Rongyao the Agricultural Bank Yongjia branch to court. The Yongjia County People's Court in July 2005 to make a first instance judgment, the bank compensation for the total loss of depositors, and pay interest. Agricultural Bank appealed to the Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court, the case was sent back to retrial. July 2006, Yongjia County retrial that the bank is responsible for the main responsibility, should bear Hong Rongyao 90% losses. After the verdict, Agricultural Bank Yongjia branch again appealed. In the end, Wenzhou maintained the Yongjia County Court to review the verdict, that is, the bank should bear 90% loss of depositors, to the depositors Hong Rongyao pay the principal 92250 yuan, and pay interest. Depositors Hong Rongyao Bear 10% of the loss.

ABC's mistake is obvious.

The reporter yesterday called the Agricultural Bank Yongjia County Branch, the bank Xu surname president said, this matter is more complicated, he is also just took office soon, the entire incident reason cannot all of a sudden say clearly. He then hung up on the phone by "being in a meeting, busy".

In court judgments, the reporter found the main reason for the failure of ABC. Yongjia County The court held that the bank failed to audit the authenticity of online bank registrant data, resulting in the criminal suspect through the possession of forged identity cards to open online banking business, access to online Banking customer certificates and network silver password, and then falsely claimed depositors deposits. Therefore, the bank in the process of accepting online bank registration is a serious fault. The Court held that, because of the bank's own illegal operation, it can not be "usually based on the client's certificate and password operation is considered to be the customer himself, the bank does not assume any responsibility," the format clause as a reason to shirk responsibility.

Liu, a lawyer at Kwong Shing Law firm, is more direct, saying that in this case, the mistakes made by ABC's Yongjia sub-branches are low. Open Online Banking services, the need for depositors to hold my ID card to the bank counter opened. In case the suspect holds the forged identity card number, and the depositor's identity card number is completely different, the Agricultural Bank Yongjia Branch has opened the online banking business for the suspect, absolutely is not good close.

He said the bank's fault was so obvious that it was more polite to bear 90% of the damage.

It is difficult to claim depositors in net bank case

Liu said, compared with the general online bank thefts, this case appears to be more special, because AgBank has obvious negligence. In most cases, depositors are not compensated for the losses caused by the theft of online banking because depositors face a difficult problem to prove.

He said that the principle of civil law is "who advocates, who testify", but most of the online bank robbery, depositors can not prove. 90% of online banks are stolen because of password leaks, but passwords can be compromised in a variety of ways, such as Trojans, hackers, and unconscious leaks. The chances of a depositor winning a lawsuit are zero, since it is not the bank's responsibility to prove it.

For example, he said, a bank has more than 400 depositors of the online bank has been stolen, but because the evidence can not be claimed.

Liu Chunquan said that although some banks said online banking technology is very advanced, such as the use of U shield, password card, password and other means to protect the security of account funds, but any application of e-commerce, there are technical risks and legal risks.

In the case of depositors suffering from online banking theft, Liu suggested that banks buy insurance for the funds of online banks, so that the losses of both banks and depositors could be paid by insurance companies.