The bank must be responsible for this incident, because the bank staff did not strictly examine it, which led to this incident, and the bank staff was hard to blame. We all know that the ID card is a very important document for us. If it is lost, you must report the loss and apply for invalidation of the lost ID card. Otherwise, others may find our ID card and use it to engage in illegal activities. However, the procedures for formal institutions like banks to borrow money are generally strict. So how did a woman's ex-husband get a loan with a woman's ID card?

First, the woman lost her ID card, and her ex-husband took a copy of her old ID card to the bank to apply for a loan, and forged her signature.

The woman said that her ID card was lost as early as 20 18. I'll get you a new ID card. I wonder how her ex-husband took a copy of his old ID card to the bank for a loan. Mr. Deng, the ex-husband, is also very honest about this. He got a copy of his ex-wife Ms. Lu's old ID card according to the instructions of the intermediary company. Handed it over to an intermediary company to handle the loan involved. He also forged Ms. Lu's fingerprints and signatures, but they were actually recognized at that time? When Ms. Lu asked the person in charge of the bank at that time, the bank said that the person in charge at that time had left the company, which was even more puzzling.

Second, is the resignation of the bank loan manager related to this matter?

When this happens, the loan officer of the bank leaves his job, which is a bit confusing. It is hard to imagine that he has nothing to do with this matter. It is also possible that the staff accepted the benefits of mosquitoes and opened a green channel for men, making it easy for men to borrow money. Of course, he can also get some benefits from it. But this stock really shouldn't have a drink with Ms. Lu. After all, they divorced, not the husband and wife in debt, but she was also a victim.

Third, the loan does not need to be repaid without knowing it.

Because Ms. Lu said that she didn't know about the loan involved and submitted relevant evidence, although the bank submitted the application for handwriting fingerprint identification, it did not specify the identification items within the prescribed time limit, nor did it submit the original application for installment business and the loan commitment letter to compare with the samples for subsequent identification, which was regarded as giving up the application for identification and should bear the adverse consequences of not providing evidence.