It upheld the view that

ba3uD7g4x

Suqian public Wang to 5 million in cash in the bank,http://popefrancisforums.com/activity, then remove the part, but when go to withdraw money actually found, even missing on account 13,950 yuan,http://bbs.hongyijia.net/forum.php?mod=forumdisplay&fid=46&filter=typeid&typeid=41, an investigation is being taken away in First Bank. Angry that the bank failed to fulfill his obligations, does not recognize forged passbook deposits was a result of his own "missing", so the bank to court. Court of First Instance to support Wang's petition, ruling the bank carte lose it. But the bank refused to accept the decision, appeal. March 24, Suqian City Court hearing on the case of second instance, that the passbook password Bin improper care of their own, should bear secondary responsibility; the bank also failed to prove that expert examination done to all the obligations, should bear the primary responsibility, Therefore, both sides of the 13,950 yuan loss responsibility was taken away by others, "forty-six open," bank compensation Wang 8370 yuan.
 
Deposit strange theft
 
13,950 yuan bank actually been taken away in the provinces
 
This incident occurred in November 2008,louboutin femme pas cher, Suqian public Wang Bin deposit in a local bank account 5 million in cash, which can hold passbook deposits and debit cards in the country deposit and withdrawal, to be safe, Wang Bin to account settings password. Since then two days, Wang has taken away some of the money from the bank. By the end, when Wang went to the bank to extract the remaining 14,000 yuan when dismayed to find that the account only 50 yuan, 13,950 yuan has disappeared.
 
Wang immediately to the police, and find their own cash bank reconciliation procedures, the bank lost money payment requirements. But the bank refused to provide withdrawal procedures, claiming that the money the day before a bank in Hunan county by others with books withdrawn. The strange thing is that Wang did not even been to Hunan, and bank cards and books have been mounted on the body, not lost.
 
In this case, Wang believes that no bank withdrawals in others check identity documents did not identify forged bank book, leading to their deposits are extracted to others, there is a serious dereliction of duty, it shall compensate the losses suffered. Several rounds of negotiations, the bank refused to compensate, Wang had to bank to court.
 
Faced with litigation, banking wronged argued that Wang's money lost cause because he leaked passwords, and passwords banks did not know, according to the regulations,http://www.3dshouyou.com/bbs/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=14303, only to withdraw their deposits or withdrawals 50,000 yuan or more, customers only need to check identity documents, and the case was removed was more than 10,louboutin homme pas cher,000 yuan demand deposits, so customers do not need to check identity documents and should therefore not liable for damages.
 
Court of First Instance examined, Wang Bin and the bank does in the agreement the two sides agreed: Bin should keep account passwords, password and losses due to leakage caused by themselves. Bin After the cash in the bank,http://bbs.xkd.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=821009&fromuid=31280, the two parties to the contractual relationship established savings passbook, bank card contract credentials on both sides. Bank bears guarantee the safety of deposits and depositors of the obligation of confidentiality, while identifying forged passbook, bank cards,tn pas cher femme, but also the obligation of the bank.
 
The court held that, in this case, the bank claimed that Bin improper care of their own password, but did not provide evidence. To say the least, even if Bin leaked password, if false passbook, bank by bank identification card does not,chaussures nike pas cher, or can not take away Bin deposits. Since the bank failed to detect forged passbook for losses caused by Bin should take full responsibility. Earlier this year, the court bank compensation Wang 13,950 yuan.
 
Court upheld
 
Depositors did not take good care of four percent assume responsibility password
 
Banks refused to accept the judgment of first instance, on March 2 this year and appealed to Suqian Intermediate People's Court, there are three main reasons: First,nike tn femme pas cher, when prescribed, depositors password,http://www.jsvco.cn/bbs/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=547815, only I know, the bank can not know the password, which concluded that the leak case Bin password can only be himself. Second, the first instance of "fails to identify counterfeit bank passbook" by banks to take full responsibility for the decision is wrong and should be unable to detect forged passbook Hunan bank to compensate, not to mention Hunan bank also received 50 yuan formalities fees, and Wang Bin formation of new contractual relationship. Third, the decision has the orientation, such as by first instance verdict, the password does not assume responsibility for disclosure depositors are likely to cause financial fraud and other crimes against banks.
 
March 24, Suqian City Court upheld the trial. The court found that the deposit is to be forged in a bank passbook Hunan removed, enter the password consistent with Wang Bin reserved withdrawals, but Wang did not disclose the password can not be guaranteed.
 
The court held that the deposit and withdrawal of savings business, the public money in a bank account is set up Bank; Bank branches or other institutions entrusted to the withdrawal of the country, are the Bank's correspondent, once the latter agency business problems, the responsibility borne by the Bank, in the case of a bank agency business Hunan only,http://onigdesign.com/error.html, not compensate. Moreover, the Bank does not prove that Wang has done a professional review of all obligations, and hence, bear the losses Bin breach.
 
As to whether Wang should bear fault liability issue,http://www.hplulu.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1268440, upheld the view that the deposit password only I know, even the Bank operational staff, can not transfer to take his computer password, so password Bin obligation safekeeping, It is precisely because he is not careful, the password is known only to others. Bin breach of confidentiality contractual savings contract deposits impersonator has a fault, it should be held accountable.
 
It upheld the view that, in this case, resulting Bin deposit is falsely claimed that there are two reasons, first, banks failed to review Kejin obligation to identify counterfeit books, the second is for the password custody Bin lax, causing the leak. On the division of responsibility of financial institutions as funds safekeeping party, bears the obligation to ensure the safety of depositors funds,http://www.idenet.net.cn/news/html/?68366.html, because not properly fulfill its obligations caused the depositor losses, should bear the primary responsibility; Bin passwords properly maintained, should bear secondary responsibility. The same day, according to the law court of second instance confirmed the liability of both parties, the Bank compensation 60%, Bin bear 40%. Concerned that the Bank can negotiate with the agency carried out recovery.
 
(Paper party is a pseudonym)
 
Correspondent Cheng Jun told reporters in Aviva
 (Edit: SN017)