Online banking theft brushes, banks should not be compensated? -Online banking, credit card, PayPal-IT information
Bank card fraudulent incidents have occurred frequently in recent years, from fake cards in fraudulent ATM machines, spreading to implant Trojan from your online bank or third party payment methods fraudulent, victims see money being transferred, but rights difficult.
Due to banks in rulemaking, Contracting negotiations, information control and the distribution of benefits has a natural advantage, the Guangdong High Court issued a document last year, increases the ratio of Bank economic loss to consumers, banks and other financial institutions have proposed more stringent burden of proof, such as "counterfeit card fraudulent" banks pay 80% or above. But if criminals steal a party to fraudulent online banking, banks need to take responsibility?
Last year, the Guangdong High Court documents, increase the percentage of the Bank's commitment to consumer economic losses, banks and other financial institutions have proposed more stringent burden of proof, such as "counterfeit card fraudulent" banks pay 80% or above. But this provision is valid for online banking cases like fraudulent? This reporter recently learned from court cases.
Typical counterfeit card fraudulent banks to bear the main responsibility
Counterfeit card fraudulent, banks need to take greater responsibility .
On December 29, 2014 at 8 in the morning, yuexiu district see Bank text messages her bank card in the previous 11:49 P.M. in off-site Bank ATM machines were turned away 30,000 yuan. She had immediately reported the case to call 110.
Guangzhou City Public Security Bureau yuexiu branch obtained video of the transfer transaction. Video showed that the two young men, transfer between 28th, 29th to withdraw using Bank cards is inconsistent with the appearance of Mrs. "This is definitely a counterfeit card. "She had sought compensation from the Bank after failing, the Bank to court.
Judges noted that Bank as a professional financial institution, issued to the depositor's bank card account has security obligations and should take on increased risk, and constantly improve the technical equipment and enhance the responsibilities of bank card security capabilities. Failed to guarantee the security of bank cards, resulting in loss of depositors ' money, should bear the compensation responsibility .
Eventually, the Court decision the banks 70% responsibility, namely Mrs 21035 Yuan of compensation and interest.
Case 1: Bank online banking theft to 40,000 yuan may not have responsibility
On April 21 last year, Guangzhou received SMS balance reminders, Bank water after finding on April 18, bank card in more than 44,000 yuan in just 2 hours through 10 online transactions are consumed, operating online banking sites are Shanghai and Suzhou, these consumer chargebacks, however she did not receive text messages. Ms report, brought to court, that banking system vulnerabilities exist, don't keep obligations requiring banks to take responsibility.
Bank aspects debate said, was stolen brush of amount all is through network silver or paid treasure, and tenpay, third party paid way paid, is Zhang ladies and third party paid institutions between of disputes; and card was stolen brush of Qian several day, Zhang ladies has two times online trading records, she was stolen brush and not received SMS of reasons, has may is because phone using improper was implanted Trojans or into fraud of website page was steal bank card card,, and ID information.
The Court found, in connection with the bank card deals without the use of entity, is different from traditional physical cases of bank card was stolen after the clone brush. Ms did not rule out the possibility of disclosing account information during the operation and cannot adduce evidence to prove that banks default or at fault.
Eventually, the interpretation by the Court, Ms Zhang applies for the withdrawal. The judge explained that given passwords private and unique characteristics, if the issuing bank cardholders using cards in the process not standardized the use of bank cards and passwords evidence, cardholders do not have sufficient evidence to refute the case, the Court finds that cardholders are not obligated to fulfill your password in a safe .
Case 2: the victim to believe leaks caused by the banks lost in second instance 70%
In another case, similar to Madam Leung met with Zhang, her claims were supported by the Court of second instance. Decision changed around the Court on the Internet usually practice in fraudulent cases.
At the age of 57 she rarely used online banking, but will use PayPal payments. Last year, she received the claim to "PayPal customer service" phone call informing her that the accounts had been compromised, need to enter personal information by text message to the linked sites. Soon, her online account payment by a third party, March 7, sum total of 19200, but so far have not received any SMS notification. As banks refused to pay compensation, Ms Leung to court.
Defendant banks argue that beam a deliberate or negligent disclosure of information about bank cards, deal with their own mistakes on their own responsibility. Beams against its application, has not been supported to yuexiu District Court of appeal. On October 26 last year, to be commuted. Banks fined accountability 70%.
Judge, second-instance revision is reserved bank depositors phone verification codes text messaging was blocked, resulting in loss of depositor money, show that banks in the performance of the contract was not properly fulfilling the obligations of notification. Court found that the loss of bank depositors ' money defaults. Taking into account the Bank as a for-profit commercial entity, in the process of providing services to financial consumers, better equipped to prevent and avoid criminal suspects against financial services by means of technology systems in order to protect the safety of consumers, the Court finds that, as appropriate, liability of bank depositors ' losses 70%.
网银被盗刷，银行应不应该赔偿？ - 网银,银行卡,支付宝 - IT资讯
近年银行卡盗刷事件频发，从制作伪卡在ATM机盗刷，蔓延到植入木马从网银或第三方支付方式盗刷，受害者眼睁睁地看着钱被转走，却维权艰难。
由于银行在规则制定、缔约谈判、信息控制和利益分配等方面具有天然优势，广东高院在去年下发文件，增加了银行对消费者经济损失的承担比例，对银行等金融机构提出了更为严格的举证责任，比如“伪卡盗刷”银行或要赔付8成以上。但如果犯罪分子是通过盗窃当事人的网银进行盗刷，银行是否需要担责？
去年，广东高院下发文件，增加了银行对消费者经济损失的承担比例，对银行等金融机构提出了更为严格的举证责任，比如“伪卡盗刷”银行或要赔付8成以上。但这一规定对网银盗刷一类的案件是否有效？对此，记者近日从法院了解到一些相关案例。
典型伪卡盗刷银行要担主责
对于伪卡盗刷，银行需要承担较大责任。
2014年12月29日早上8点多，越秀区的曾女士看到银行提示短信，她的银行卡在前一晚11时49分在异地跨行ATM机上被转走了3万元。曾女士立即拨打110报案。
广州市公安局越秀分局调取了转账交易时的视频。视屏显示涉案为两个年轻男性，28日转账，29日取现，使用的银行卡与曾女士的外观不一致。“这肯定是伪卡。”曾女士要求银行赔偿未果后，把银行起诉到法院。
法官指出，银行作为专业金融机构，对核发给储户的银行卡账户资金负有安全保障义务，并应承担提高风险防范能力、不断完善技术设备和提升银行卡防伪能力的职责。未能保证银行卡的安全性能，导致储户资金损失，应承担相应的赔偿责任。
最终，法院判决银行承担7成责任，即赔偿曾女士21035元及利息。
案例1：网银被盗4万元银行未必有责
去年4月21日，广州的张女士收到短信余额提醒，后查询银行流水发现，在4月18日，银行卡里的4.4万余元在短短2小时内通过10笔网上交易被消费掉了，操作网银的地点是上海和苏州，然而她没有收到这些消费扣款短信。张女士报案后，向法院起诉，认为银行存在系统漏洞，没有尽保管义务，要求银行担责。
银行方面辩称，被盗刷的金额全部是通过网银或支付宝、财付通等第三方支付方式支付，是张女士与第三方支付机构间的纠纷；且卡被盗刷的前几日，张女士有两次网上交易记录，她被盗刷且未收到短信的原因，有可能是因为手机使用不当被植入木马或进入诈骗的网站页面被盗取银行卡卡号、身份证信息。
法院审理查明，涉案的几笔交易无需使用实体银行卡，有别于传统的实体银行卡被克隆后盗刷的案件。不排除张女士在操作过程中泄露账户信息的可能性，且不能举证证明银行存在违约或有过错。
最终，经法院释明，张女士申请撤诉。法官解释，鉴于密码私密性和唯一性的特点，如果发卡行提交了持卡人在用卡过程中存在不规范使用银行卡和密码的证据，在持卡人没有充分证据予以反驳的情况下，人民法院可以认定持卡人没有尽到妥善保管密码的义务。
案例2：事主轻信致泄密银行二审赔7成
另一起案件中，梁女士遇到了与张女士相似的情况，她的索赔要求获得二审法院的支持。判决改变了目前各地许多法院对此类网上盗刷案件的通常做法。
时年57岁的梁女士很少用网上银行，但会使用支付宝还款。去年她接到自称“支付宝客服”的电话，通知她的账户被盗用，需要按短信提示到链接网址输入个人信息。很快，梁女士的网上账户被第三方支付方式转走了7笔钱共计19200元，但至今未收到任何短信通知。因银行拒绝赔偿，梁女士起诉至法院。
被告银行辩称，梁某故意或过失泄露银行卡的相关信息，应对其本身的过错自行承担责任。梁不服其诉请未获支持，向越秀区法院提起了上诉。去年10月26日，案件获得改判。银行最终被判担责70%。
法官介绍，二审改判理由是银行向储户预留手机发出的验证码短信被拦截，导致储户款项损失，表明银行在履行合同过程中未正确尽到通知义务。法院认定银行对于储户的款项损失存在违约行为。考虑到银行作为以营利为目的的商事主体，在向金融消费者提供服务的过程中，更有能力预防和避免犯罪嫌疑人通过科技手段来侵害金融服务系统，以保障消费者资金安全，法院酌情认定银行应对储户的损失承担七成的赔偿责任。