A Case Record of a Deposit Certificate Dispute

——Lawyer Zhou Xiangen

Savings deposits have disappeared

Lu is an employee of a telecommunications company. In order to facilitate the calculation and payment of employee salaries, the telecommunications company opened a current savings account for Lu at the Zhongshan Branch of China Construction Bank in Taizhou City in December 1997, and Lu kept the password for the current savings account. The current savings certificate can be deposited and redeemed at all times. On February 4, 2000, Lu took the current deposit certificate to the bank where he opened the account for withdrawal, and found that on January 21, 2000, 5000 RMB had been withdrawn from a savings office under the Jiaojiang Branch of China Construction Bank; For this reason, Lu repeatedly negotiated with the two banks to demand compensation for their losses. The two banks did not support Lu's request on the grounds that their own business operations met the regulations and were not at fault.

The bank made no mistakes when the deposit was withdrawn

Lu filed a lawsuit claiming that as a financial institution, it has an obligation to safeguard the depositors' deposits; Due to the violation of regulations by the staff of the two banks in their business operations, they did not carefully review important vouchers such as passbooks and withdrawal receipts, resulting in Lu's deposit being falsely claimed, and they should bear the liability for fault compensation in accordance with the law. The bank's defense believes that the 5000 yuan deposit was withdrawn with a password, and its staff operated according to the savings management regulations during the withdrawal process, without any fault.

Intensive evidence gathering around the focal point

To prove the bank's fault liability, Lu presented the China Construction Bank Deposit Teller Operating Procedures to the court, which stipulated that when depositors withdraw funds, the bank staff should verify that the withdrawal receipt and the deposit receipt have the same name. In this case, when the 5000 yuan withdrawal business was processed, the withdrawal receipt was filled in with "Lu X Fei" and the deposit receipt was filled in with "Lu X Fei", proving that the bank staff had made an error in the verification. Lawyer Zhou Xiangen, acting on behalf of the bank, believes that the confirmation from the withdrawal receipt is that when the withdrawal recipient filled out the withdrawal form, the handwriting was illegible, which cannot prove that the name on the withdrawal form is "Lu X Fei"; Even for 'Lu X Fei', the funds cannot be withdrawn because the withdrawing party must enter the depositor's password to display the depositor's account balance. Based on the depositor's balance, the bank checks whether the withdrawn funds exceed that balance, and the password is only known to the depositor, which the bank staff cannot know at all.

To prove that the bank was not at fault in this case, Lawyer Zhou Xiangen submitted the following evidence to the court:

1. The withdrawal vouchers of Lu at different times prove that there were different handwriting when Lu withdrew at different times, indicating that in addition to Lu himself knowing the deposit receipt password, there was also a fact that a third party knew the password;

2. The computer network user manual, management measures for universal deposit and withdrawal processing system, and business operation rules prove that the depositor's encrypted deposit receipt cannot be known by the bank staff. All universal deposit and withdrawal receipts must be withdrawn with a password. As long as the correct password is entered for the deposit, withdrawal can be made even without filling out the form.

Lu's agent's cross examination found that the above evidence cannot prove that the bank operated according to regulations when handling the withdrawal business of 5000 yuan in this case, and this regulation is an internal relevant regulation and has no effect on Lu. In response to the opposing lawyer's opinion, Lawyer Zhou Xiangen made the following cross examination and rebuttal:

1. In this case, Lu did not have evidence to prove that the banking staff violated the rules when handling the 5000 yuan savings and withdrawal business; The internal operating procedures of the bank are a rule that bank employees must comply with; The most powerful evidence to determine whether banking personnel have engaged in illegal operations is their operating procedures;

2. Given that banks implement the principle of "one person, one code, dedicated personnel, hierarchical management, and no disclosure" for computer passwords, bank staff are unable to know the password of the depositor; If a depositor forgets or changes their password, they must present their deposit receipt or ID card for processing. Therefore, for deposits with universal deposit and withdrawal services, they must present their reserved password for processing; Therefore, certificates of deposit and passwords are necessary and the only conditions for cash withdrawal, and both are indispensable.

Bank's No Liability Claim Rejected

1、 After trial, the second court held that after the depositor opened an account in the bank, a legal relationship of a savings contract was formed between the two parties; The deposit receipt serves as the basis for the written contract between both parties, and the bank, as the debtor, has a payment obligation to the creditor; For the holder of the debt certificate, considering that the withdrawal amount in this case is only 5000 yuan, the bank has no obligation to review whether it is a true creditor and whether the deposit certificate is held; Due to the addition of a password to the passbook in this case, according to the relevant operational regulations of the bank, all certificates of deposit with universal deposit and withdrawal services are processed with the reserved password; Therefore, certificates of deposit and passwords are necessary and only conditions for cash withdrawal; Given that banks implement the principle of "one person, one code, dedicated personnel, hierarchical management, and no disclosure" for computer passwords, bank staff are unable to know the password of the depositor; If a depositor forgets or changes their password, they must present their deposit receipt or ID card to process the process. The 5000 yuan withdrawal from Lu should be deemed that the bank staff did not know the password of the deposit receipt, so the bank did not make any mistakes when handling the 5000 yuan withdrawal business; At the same time, Lu argued that the name was filled in incorrectly, which is not one of the reasons why the deposit was withdrawn, and there is no direct causal relationship between the two. Lu filed a lawsuit demanding that the bank bear compensation liability, but due to insufficient reasons, it was not supported by law and was rejected.

Enlightenment from this case

Currently, banks have set up self-service banks to facilitate withdrawals by depositors; Since the establishment of self-service banks, there have been many cases where the funds on the cards of depositors have been unclaimed. Therefore, in order to prevent some criminals from using bank cards to commit crimes, the public security department requires the financial department to set up monitoring devices for self-service banks; Banks at self-service banks also remind users to strengthen the protection of their own card numbers and passwords. If abnormal phenomena occur, please contact relevant departments in a timely manner. Therefore, strengthening bank card legislation and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of depositors is an important issue at present.