This is hard to say. Let’s take a look at the case:

A: Replay of the case

At noon on December 12, 2006, Mr. Sun from Shenyang City suddenly He received a consumer text message from China Merchants Bank. The text message showed that his credit card had just been spent on shopping in a mall. Mr. Sun rushed home and found that 12 bank cards of various types, including China Merchants Bank credit cards, had been stolen. Mr. Sun quickly reported the loss and found that someone had used his bank card to make two purchases of 35,686 yuan in a shopping mall.

The police investigation found that there was a certain gap between the signature and handwriting of the fraudulent user when making purchases and Mr. Sun's signature. However, since Mr. Sun's credit card has been lost, this handwriting cannot be compared with the signature on the back of the lost credit card.

China Merchants Bank compensated Mr. Sun 15,000 yuan in accordance with the contract, and Mr. Sun’s actual loss was 20,686 yuan. If the thief cannot be found, who is responsible for the loss of more than 20,000 yuan? Mr. Sun took the mall to court on the grounds that the mall failed to fulfill its duty of due diligence. Ask the mall to compensate for its losses.

B: Trial Record

The court of first instance held that the signature of the fake user was obviously different from Mr. Sun’s signature, and the shopping mall failed to fulfill its duty of careful review. The court ruled that the mall should compensate Mr. Sun for the 20,686 yuan he lost. After the verdict was announced, the mall was dissatisfied and appealed.

The second instance of the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court held that the mall cashier did not have professional identification capabilities, had no relevant auxiliary tools, and did not have a considerable number of samples. Moreover, there are certain differences in everyone's signatures at different times and occasions, so the cashier can only be judged to be at fault based on ordinary people's standards rather than professional standards.

The court of second instance ruled that the shopping mall made no fault in accepting Mr. Sun’s credit card consumption and should not be liable for compensation. The first-instance judgment was revoked and Mr. Sun’s claim was dismissed.

C: Talking to the judge

Reporter: Through this case, can we think that under any circumstances, the shopping mall should not compensate consumers if their credit cards are stolen?

Judge (Judge Chen Dongguang of Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court): It cannot be said that when a shopping mall has a major negligence, there should be corresponding liability for damages. For example, Shanghai citizen Yu Tonghai's credit card was stolen. When making purchases, the impostor wrote his signature as "Yu Ganghai", but the mall failed to detect it and awarded him half of the loss.

Reporter: Why can’t the review obligations be increased on shopping malls?

Judge: If a heavier inspection obligation is imposed on merchants, merchants will inevitably refuse to accept cardholders who are not completely sure that they are signed by the cardholder himself. This goes against the convenience and speed of issuing credit cards. original intention. At the same time, if shopping malls are made to bear the liability for consumption after the credit card is lost, it may encourage credit card fraud.

Reporter: Through this case, what kind of reminders are there for citizens who hold credit cards?

Judge: When applying for credit cards, citizens should pay attention to choosing banks with higher compensation after theft. Cardholders should also pay attention to protecting their credit cards to avoid undue losses.