Recently, Siming district court heard a bizarre bank card dispute case: Plaintiff Xiao Zhang (alias) insisted that he did not lose his card, the huge deposits in KOCA were continuously withdrawn from ATM machines in two provinces and four cities within 3 days, and the final loss was more than 160,000 yuan.

Xiao Zhang works in Xiamen. This bank card is a salary card, and the processing time is very early. Therefore, the SMS reminder function is not activated. At the end of March this year, he had just checked the balance, and there were still more than 160,000 yuan in the card at that time. When the money was withdrawn in the middle of April, the money disappeared.

The exaggerated bank records made Xiao Zhang cry and laugh. It showed that on April 1, the card was taken away by someone on ATM machines in Linyi and Jinan, Shandong province for more than 20,000 yuan; On April 2, it was taken in Beijing, the ATM machines in Wenzhou, Zhejiang province and Linyi, Shandong province took more than 70,000 yuan and consumed more than 40,000 yuan. On April 3, more than 30,000 yuan was taken away at the above locations. On April 9th, some people didn’t give up and spent 9.52 yuan from Beijing.

Xiao Zhang immediately called the police and issued a work certificate to the unit, confirming that he worked in the unit every day during the above period, and it was impossible to travel around the country. At the same time, he also took the bank to which the card belongs to to the court and found that they failed to identify the fake card and did not fulfill their security obligations, so they should compensate for the corresponding losses.

The bank tried to defend Xiao Zhang on the grounds that he did not properly keep his bank card and password, but did not get the support of the court. After trial, Siming district court found that the bank card account in this case was withdrawn by self-help and consumed by credit card from different places far away in a short period of time, combined with daily life experience, it can be presumed that the withdrawing party uses a fake card. The bank did not fulfill its obligation to protect the deposit and transaction security of depositors, and failed to identify the authenticity of the bank card, which directly led to the plaintiff Xiao Zhang’s account being taken away and consumed by others, and there was a major fault. At the same time, the bank’s payment of the above payment without Xiao Zhang’s consent also constitutes a breach of contract and should bear the corresponding liability for breach of contract. Therefore, the court finally decided that the bank should compensate all the deposits lost by Xiao Zhang and the corresponding interest.