The old man was defrauded of 700,000 yuan by telecom fraud, and the court sentenced the bank to bear 20% of the responsibility. Release time: 2021-11-05 Category: 拉卡拉pos machine security Read: 224
A telecom fraud caused Chen Yumei, who was nearly 70 years old, to lose more than 700,000 yuan. She obeyed the scammer’s request, opened online banking and an electronic password device at a bank branch, and informed the scammer of the password generated by the electronic password device, resulting in the transfer of the money in the account. The court held that the bank branch was at fault and should bear 20% of the responsibility, and ordered the bank branch to compensate Chen Yumei 140,000 yuan. There are not a few victims of telecom fraud suing banks, but few like Chen Yumei eventually get compensation from banks. Replay of the incident: 700,000 yuan was transferred away after applying for electronic banking. On March 29 last year, 68-year-old Chen Yumei received a phone call pretending to be a staff member of a bank in Tianjin, informing her that her bank card was overdrawn by more than 10,000 yuan. Chen Yumei felt a little panic in her heart: she didn’t have the bank card of the bank. So she accepted the other party’s suggestion to “call the police” and connected the so-called “public security system call”. On the phone, the liar posing as a police officer told Chen Yumei that she was involved in a major case, her mobile phone was stolen, and her bank account would be frozen. Under the guidance of the liar, Chen Yumei fell into the trap step by step. The “policeman” suggested that she go to the bank to open a new card, deposit the money in other bank accounts into this new card to prevent it from being frozen, and apply for mobile banking and electronic password device for this new card. Chen Yumei came to a bank branch in Fengtai District and asked to apply for mobile banking and electronic password device. Because she is over 60 years old and has no children to accompany her, according to relevant regulations, the bank branch did not handle it for her. The “policeman” also suggested that Chen Yumei try another outlet, so she went to another outlet of the bank and successfully applied for a new card ending in 4114, opened online banking and mobile banking, and cancelled phone banking and SMS authentication payment. . Subsequently, Chen Yumei processed two regular early withdrawals and one regular due withdrawal at the bank’s counter, and transferred all the 400,000 yuan withdrawn to the newly established 4114 card and deposited it as a fixed term. Next, with the assistance of bank staff, Chen Yumei handled 4114 card personal electronic banking through self-service smart terminal equipment, opened a series of functions, and received an electronic password device.
After leaving the bank, the “policeman” called again and said that the “public security bureau” needed to encrypt the electronic cipher, and repeatedly asked Chen Yumei to inform the “police” of the password generated by the electronic cipher. After getting the password, the scammer took the opportunity to transfer the money in Chen Yumei’s account. The “policeman” also advised Chen Yumei that the bank card had been frozen by the China Banking Regulatory Commission and should not be used within a week, and asked Chen Yumei to deposit other money into this card. The next day, Chen Yumei asked others to put the 300,000 yuan in arrears back into the card, and the liar did the same and transferred the 300,000 yuan away. In just two days, more than 700,000 yuan was defrauded of Chen Yumei’s bank card for more than a dozen transfers and remittances. Plaintiff’s reason: The old man suffers from severe Alzheimer’s disease and his account has been defrauded before, which is a high risk. Why should he be defrauded of money, and the bank should be held responsible? Chen Yumei’s lawyer stated in the trial that as early as 2017, Chen Yumei had suffered a telecom fraud, and her account is currently a high-risk account. And Chen Yumei was diagnosed with severe senile dementia in the physical examination before the trial. The plaintiff believes that the bank illegally handled electronic banking for the elderly without their children. In addition, Chen Yumei’s debit card account is a high-risk account. The bank should have handled electronic banking services for her through the counter, but in the end, she only instructed her to handle the electronic password device through the self-service intelligent terminal device. Furthermore, Chen Yumei’s time deposit was withdrawn in advance on the day of processing, and the bank should have adopted a more prudent way of identity verification to maintain the security of her transaction. It is precisely because of the above-mentioned breach of contract by the bank that the elderly have suffered losses of more than 700,000 yuan and should be compensated. On April 9 last year, after being defrauded of more than 700,000 yuan, Chen Yumei, accompanied by her daughter Liang Jing, went to two other branches of the bank to ask the staff about the workflow and videotaped them. In the video, the two branch staff told the mother and daughter that the bank has unified requirements in the Fengtai area that elderly people over 60 years old must be accompanied by their children when handling e-banking-related business. During the trial, Liang Jing showed the court a video of questioning bank staff. “In this outlet where the accident happened, except when I went to collect evidence, I carefully observed that there was an anti-fraud brochure printed on black and white A4 paper in the corner, and there was no anti-fraud publicity in a prominent position in the lobby. When my mother was doing business , and did not carry out any anti-fraud safety tips.” Liang Jing said that from the video surveillance at the time of the incident, it can be seen that all of the mother’s business was handled under the guidance and assistance of the staff, and the mother did not understand these things at all. Not to be used. Defendant’s reason: The previous branch refused to handle the risk warning obligation, and the bank’s staff responded in court: “The bank has already done enough warning. The plaintiff first went to one branch and was rejected, and then went to another one. , we have fulfilled the obligation of risk warning, but the plaintiff insists on handling the business, and the corresponding business is in line with national security standards, so the bank has fulfilled the responsibility of risk warning.” In addition, the bank also believes that mobile banking is required for external payment. Both the mobile phone and the electronic password generator are mastered by Chen Yumei herself. In addition, Chen Yumei has a clear mind when she does business, and she also recognizes it when the bank gives her a risk warning.
Final verdict: The bank was at fault for not agreeing on the transfer limit. After the court trial, the court found that Chen Yumei believed in fraudulent phone calls and leaked passwords during the transfer process, which led to the transfer of the money in the account, which was the direct cause of the loss of funds. But banks are also at fault. The court found that, according to the relevant regulations of the People’s Bank of China, when the bank opens the non-counter transfer business for the depositor, it should sign an agreement with the depositor to stipulate the daily cumulative limit, number of transactions and annual cumulative limit of non-counter channel transfers. In addition, if the accumulative amount of non-counter transfers in the bank accounts of units and individuals in a single day exceeds 1 million yuan and 300,000 yuan respectively, the bank shall issue a reminder for large-value transactions, and the unit or individual can only transfer after confirmation. The Fengtai court held that the bank’s branch did not agree on the limit of external payment with Chen Yumei in accordance with the regulations of the People’s Bank of China, and it was also at fault. After comprehensive consideration, the court held that Chen Yumei should bear the main responsibility for the loss, and the bank should bear part of the compensation responsibility, and determined that the bank outlet should compensate Chen Yumei for 20% of the loss of 140,000 yuan. The judge said: The handling process is too simplified and does not match the risk of large-amount payment. Why is the bank branch at fault for Chen Yumei’s loss in this case? Jiao Meijie, the assistant judge in this case, explained that although Chen Yumei signed the various customer instructions during the process of e-banking and receiving the e-crypto device, the bank staff did not inform Chen Yumei in advance or directly, and did not directly tell Chen Yumei to use the password in a conspicuous way. The risk of the electronic cipher device is not matched with the risk of large-amount payment of the electronic cipher device. The bank branch is obviously at fault, and it should be partially responsible for Chen Yumei’s loss. “At present, there are no regulations prohibiting banks from handling e-banking services for the elderly alone.” Despite this, Jiao Meijie also reminded that when banks handle business for the elderly, they must not only strictly follow the laws and regulations, but also more rigorously review and inform them. Give more attention and help to the elderly when handling e-banking business to prevent the elderly from being deceived. Extended reading: Banks are not responsible for similar cases. In another case heard by Fengtai Court, Yang Xiuyun, a retired employee, also suffered telecom fraud. He transferred nearly 50,000 yuan to the scammer through an automatic deposit machine in a branch of a bank. . Yang Xiuyun took the bank branch to court with a complaint, believing that he was deceived because the bank branch was neglected and neglected in management. The bank believes that the bank has fulfilled its security obligations. Yang Xiuyun completed the remittance on the self-service machine, and there are safety prompts on the self-service machine. The self-service area also loops the anti-fraud prompts of the public security organs.
The court held that Yang Xiuyun was a self-service business, and the bank staff was not obliged to come forward to assist, and ultimately did not support Yang Xiuyun’s claim. In another case heard by the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court, the client Yao suffered a loss of more than 290,000 yuan from telecom fraud. After Yao disclosed his card number, bank card password, and mobile phone information to the liar, the criminal directly logged into Yao’s mobile banking. He applied for a loan in Yao’s name and transferred the money away. The Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court held that the bank had fulfilled its due guarantee obligations when handling bank cards and other businesses for Yao, and it was not responsible for Yao’s losses. In fact, when victims of wire fraud go to court with banks, banks are found not liable in most cases. The reporter inquired about the judgments of local courts on such cases since 2019 and found that among the 10 second-instance and retrial judgments of similar cases, the plaintiffs of 9 cases lost the case, and the bank was sentenced to not be required to bear the economic losses of customers who were defrauded. In only one case, the plaintiff was stolen because he clicked on an unknown link, and the court ruled that the bank should bear 50% of the loss. Reporter’s visit: Bank tellers are more vigilant when they do business for the elderly. When a reporter experienced a large-value transfer business at an outlet of a state-owned bank, the teller repeatedly confirmed the relationship between the transfer account holder and the reporter, and asked for a signature to confirm. Ms. Yang, a teller of a commercial bank in Beijing, told reporters that her bank has stricter requirements for customers to open cards. “Generally speaking, we are more vigilant when we encounter elderly people coming to do business. If we feel that the elderly are behaving strangely, we will take the initiative to ask questions and contact the police if necessary.” Ms. Yang said, ” But if the elderly are defrauded by themselves through ATM machine or mobile phone transfer operation, we have no way to avoid such a thing.” The judge reminded that the elderly should be alert to fraudulent calls and refuse to handle electronic payment services or provide bank payment passwords. Require. If you are afraid of adverse legal consequences, you can ask relatives and children, bank staff or police, and do not directly conduct banking operations. (All characters in this article are pseudonyms)