By combing the case information, it can be seen that after the funds were stolen, the court had different requirements for the proof of banks and depositors.
The court needs the depositor to provide evidence to prove that the funds have been stolen, and if there are problems with the password and signature, it also needs the depositor to provide judicial notes for identification;
At the bank level, the court needs the bank to provide proof of business disputes or disputes (including deposit and withdrawal business, loan and credit card business, wealth management business and intermediary business, etc.). ) between depositors and banking financial institutions or banking practitioners.
In the case that several depositors' deposits of ICBC Nanning Branch were misappropriated, Nanning Intermediate People's Court said in the judgment that "whether ICBC, the employee's original unit, is responsible for returning compensation is beyond the scope of this case, and our court will not make a judgment".
After the first-instance judgment was issued, many victims believed that bank employees caused their losses. Although they have been expelled from the bank, the bank is still responsible for the loss. At present, the second trial is still under trial.
Wang Deyi, a lawyer of Beijing Xunzhen Law Firm, analyzed in an interview with this newspaper that at present, the court has only determined the criminal liability of the relevant personnel, but has not tried the civil liability between the depositor and the bank, but this does not affect the legal relationship of the deposit and savings contract between the depositor and the bank.
Wang Deyi further pointed out that in addition, the counterparty of depositors' deposits is banks. Legally speaking, the counterparty of a depositor's contract is a bank, not an individual. Depositors have the right to claim compensation from banks, and banks can also hold the persons involved accountable.
Judging from relevant cases, some depositors also gave feedback to the local banking and insurance regulatory bureau after the incident. According to the regulatory reply, the Bank's mechanism in employee behavior management, counter business risk prevention, important post rotation and employee abnormal behavior investigation is not perfect, and case risk prevention and control is insufficient. It also took regulatory measures such as issuing regulatory tips and interviewing branch executives, requiring banks to strengthen and improve employee behavior management and internal control.
"Depositors hand over funds to banks, and banks are obliged to ensure the safety of funds. They do not manage their own employees, seals and systems, instead of letting depositors bear them. Of course, if there is a civil dispute, the court may find that the customer himself is at fault and the customer himself needs to bear part of the responsibility. " Wang Deyi said.
Regarding the follow-up measures of Nanning Branch's case, beijing business today reporter asked ICBC today, and has not received a reply so far.
In recent years, such cases have attracted the attention of regulators. China Banking Regulatory Commission organized and carried out the work of "consolidating the results of chaos control and promoting compliance construction", "looking back" and "Building Year of Internal Control and Compliance Management" to standardize bill trading behavior.
For depositors, how to prevent the money deposited in the bank account from disappearing?
In Wang Jianhui's view, depositors should take good care of their ID cards, bank cards, passwords and other information in the process of handling business, go to the counter in person, and don't trust the third-party personnel recommended by bank employees. At the same time, they should be optimistic about the contract, product specifications and other information when signing the contract.
The CBRC has previously pointed out that all banking institutions should constantly improve their internal control level, further standardize the management of bank acceptance bills, and avoid leaving any opportunities for criminals to infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of commercial banks and financial consumers.
Banks do not have to bear any liability for compensation. ICBC Nanning Branch's deposit of more than 250 million yuan is "missing". The bank executives who operated in the black box were sentenced to life imprisonment in the first instance, but the depositors involved were in a situation of losing all their money. Recently, many victims of this major financial case told reporters that their deposits were quietly transferred by Liang, an executive of ICBC Nanning Branch, after handling the large deposit certificate business on the spot. However, the court of first instance found Liang guilty of stealing depositors and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The bank does not have to bear any liability for compensation. It is difficult for them to understand: how can the deposit in the bank be stolen in broad daylight? Why can banks be completely exempted from liability?
It doesn't make any sense. Banks should be the safest place. Did the user go to the bank to deposit money anyway? Have you deposited the bank deposit certificate? I did it. Then the money was finally lost, why didn't the bank have to bear the responsibility? Didn't the users who accused the thrifty find that the executives had fraud problems? If something happens, you are not responsible. What about the credibility of the bank?
This kind of thing doesn't make sense anywhere, it depends on the follow-up. After all, it is not clear whether there are many articles in some things.