|
|
Newspaper reporter Zhao Yang core tips
Ningde branch of a bank that the bank depositors Anke took more than $ 10,Louboutin à Bout Ouvert,000 in two months, the money on the account without permission she planning to go a million. Anke To this end the row to court, and the branch then filed a countersuit that Ms. Ho is unjust enrichment. Currently, the local court has accepted the case.
See 10,000 yuan
Ningde, who lives near the square downtown New Asia Ms Ho said, September 10, 0900, she was finishing in the middle Ningde eight hundred and fifteen afterwards, holding the book to the nearest branch business hall withdrawals. She proposed to the bank teller window to get 30,000 yuan in cash, and pretty soon, she serves as usual, took the book and cash back, then placed in a bag and go home. Afternoon, she pulled from 30,000 in cash in the four Bai Yuanchao to cover everyday household, after the remaining 29,http://www.healthcarehall.com/viewnews-24626.shtml,600 yuan deposited in their home near the line Dongqiao branches.
"6 o'clock that evening, I received the bank handling teller phone, say I am withdrawals, took more than $ 10,000. This name teller and his family also came to my house to mention this, I was clearly told her take no more. "Ms Ho said.
The bank passbook from Anke provided to see on this record, this year September 10 Anke account to access recording two pens, a withdrawal of $ 30,000, a sum of 29,600 yuan deposit.
Ningde branch office of a bank responsible person interview with this reporter,http://bbs.vxbao.com/thread-563961-1-1.html, said that this event,Louboutin Mariage, from the bank to monitor the day can be seen,Louboutin Soirée, she serves really took more than $ 10,http://www.tfc-charts2.w2d.com/forum/index.cgi,000. But how to determine the bank a few million, is Anke take, the official said Ms. Ho "obvious."
Yuan deposits was planning to go
However,http://www.youqinghuiyulecheng.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=16524, development of the next, clearly contrary to Ms Ho's expectations.
November 14, Anke find a million on their bank accounts suddenly less. "My bank book also passwords, bank without their consent, secretly planning to go a million on my account." Anke dissatisfaction that has not been her permission, her bank passbook privately what the money button go? If so, depositors also feel safe?
The branch confirmed the account from Anke planning to go on a million. Official said, after she serves withdraw money left the bank, when the staff found a million less settlement, surveillance video and found that due to the negligence of the teller, give the Anke $ 10,000 so I want her to have it money. Bank has repeatedly notified each other to be with, but not with each other, the bank in accordance with the bank's rules and regulations, will be on its deposit accounts made equal to freeze and eventually received the money deducted.
Bank depositors sue each other
Anke decided to have a say, and then sue the Jiaocheng District People's Court, requiring banks to return secretly planning to go one yuan, the current court has been filed. The branch of a bank Ningde relevant responsible person said, in the prosecution of Ms. Ho, the bank has also filed a counterclaim that Ms. Ho unjust enrichment.
"The current court is mediation, also hopes to negotiated settlement." The official told reporters.
However, the crucial video evidence was not disclosed. Ms. Ho also told reporters that he did not take more than $ 10,000. She also suggested that if you do not believe to see the monitor. But after some time, she repeatedly asked the bank to view the surveillance video of her on the day to counter withdrawals,http://avisdemo.in/forum/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=36827, the bank can always refuse.
Previously, the bank told the media that has entered the judicial process, the specific situation can only wait for the court again responded, surveillance video as evidence in court will temporarily provide viewing.
Lawyers say: Bank practices breach infringement
Fuzhou Kaiyuan Lawyer
Yang Dacheng He believes that between banks and depositors of savings is a contractual relationship, if the bank depositors without permission,http://d-s.sumomo.ne.jp/ew/cgi/bbs/index.cgi/m, planning to go funds from depositors accounts,Louboutin Souliers Plat, both in violation of the contract, but also a violation of property rights of depositors.
If indeed she serves as Bank staff mistakes, no reason to give a million, it would constitute unjust enrichment, a negative return of responsibility to deal with the bank. Yang Da-cheng told reporters that at present neither confirmed depositors, the court decision has not yet found. Bank to recover the million payment, it must be through legal proceedings, and can not be forced to charge. If you are forced to allocate to go, alleged violations of the legitimate rights and interests of customers. As the bank said it was in accordance with the bank's rules and regulations debit,http://www.agenquadri.it, but to make it clear that the bank's internal regulations not against laws and regulations.
Yang Dacheng also said that the key is to be paid directly to the bank can confirm Anke 40,000 yuan. If the surveillance video clearly records the staff removed 40,000 yuan directly to Miss Fu Jihe, such as denominations of $ 100 RMB without any dismantled, Seals intact, binding firm, the same thickness, each of the 100 should be considered ie each to $ 10,000, can be used as evidence.
Views and Commander: Can a "from the cabinet shall not be responsible for" respond Bank
Usually go to the bank access to money, if the customer away from the cabinet encounter counterfeit, and so little money, the banks are in terms of "from the cabinet shall not be responsible" to shirk responsibility. But if the banks may be more money to the customer, the customer can use "from the cabinet shall not be responsible" to respond to banks? The legal profession that, if understood as absolute "from the cabinet is not responsible for all", there is no legal basis. If interpreted as "after leaving the cabinet without evidence is not responsible," which is to be supported by law.
According to the "Contract Law" stipulates that after the end of trading, leaving the market place, it means that the contract has been fulfilled, if free to go "looking after the accounts" in the absence of any evidence, it will lead to many unnecessary disputes and troubles. However,Louboutin Mary Jane, there is evidence that the presence of the trading process error conditions (surveillance video, etc.), that there is evidence, and this time again "from the cabinet shall not be responsible for" not to evade it. & Nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; (money night)
Related Stories
Henan: a short section of bank depositors ten thousand yuan reported anti unjust enrichment against
March 2005, Luohe City, Henan Wuyang a bank staff for End after a depositor withdrawals business and found a short paragraph 1 million, believed to be more to the name of the depositor, to beg for it. Two sides in court. Luohe City Intermediate People's Court of Final Appeal ruling, dismissed the claims of the bank.
Luohe Court held that both the focus of controversy is the amount in question withdrawals. Each of the 100 provisions of the bill, only cash income within the bank to conduct an inventory and storage standards, but the internal regulations of the banking system, only the bank's internal systems cashier has a regulatory role. Cash paid to savers must face inventory, and the amount of inventory in person prevail. Bank savings bank staff even though it can confirm to Hemou 6 sealed cash, but can not confirm the exact cash payment is 100 per put, we can not conclude that the cash was HeMou receive $ 50,000. Withdrawal slip filled out by withdrawals from savings and current account of the internal records, can confirm Hemou removed 40,000 yuan.
(China Court News)
Liaoning: a short section of the bank depositors' money was sentenced to ten thousand yuan planning to go against
In 2007, Shenyang, a bank finds that bank depositors to pay a 10,000 yuan, and come up with the video as evidence, and planning to go to the depositors 10,000 yuan deposit. Depositors bank to court. Dongling District People's Court found that video evidence is not sufficient to identify the bank to pay depositors money should be deducted 10,000 yuan to return depositors.
The trial, both sides paid by banks is 7 or 8 bundles of bundles of RMB dispute. Bank considers evidence of overpayment is surveillance video. But after China Criminal Police College for the video identified, conclusions can not tell the bank teller who handed Chu Xuyuan pay the entire bundle of money is 7 or 8 bundles of bundles.
Dongling District Court held that: banks stand to pay 10,000 yuan Chen, but the bank video surveillance video can not conclude that the bank teller who handed pay specific amount of money,http://searchcoin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=66392#p66392, which is now no evidence to prove Chen took more deposits 10,000. The Bank shall be returned 10,000 yuan Chen. & Nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; (Shenyang Daily)
Share: welcome to comment I want to comment
Microblogging Recommended | today's hot microblogging (edit: SN026) |
|
發表於 2015-6-16 17:45:39
收藏