Mr. Chen, a citizen, once applied for a credit card. Due to a long period of unpaid debts, his card debt accumulated to tens of thousands of yuan. The bank took him to court to recover, and the court ruled after hearing that Mr. Chen only had to pay 12 yuan in other expenses.

Case Review

Because the credit card debt in Mr. Chen’s name was unpaid, the card-issuing bank filed a lawsuit with Chancheng Court, requesting an order to order Mr. Chen to immediately pay off the principal of the arrears of 34043.16 Yuan and interest, late payment fees, liquidated damages and related expenses until the actual settlement date (tentatively calculated until May 12, 2017, interest is 39,118.04 yuan and other expenses are 12 yuan).

In response, Mr. Chen protested that the principal involved in the case was not consumed by him, nor did he authorize others to consume it. When he discovered the abnormal consumption, he reported the case and reported it to the card-issuing bank. , therefore, it should not be regarded as personal consumption, nor should interest and late payment fees be calculated on this principal.

After the first court hearing, the card-issuing bank applied to add the acquiring bank (that is, the provider of the POS machine) and Liang, the operator of an electrical appliance store in Foshan City (hereinafter referred to as the electrical appliance store) to participate in the lawsuit as defendants. .

According to the purchase form, the credit card involved in the case was used to spend 35,000 yuan at an electrical appliance store on March 14, 2013. The cardholder's signature on the POS purchase form was signed "Chen." The credit card involved in the case was still held by Mr. Chen until the trial, and the loss was not reported. It has now been deactivated due to arrears. Since the 35,000 yuan card consumption involved in the case on March 14, 2013, no new card consumption has occurred. The interest involved in the case is 39,118.04 yuan, which was all generated by the arrears of 35,000 yuan.

Court Judgment

After hearing, the Chancheng Court held that this case was a credit card dispute, and the focus of the dispute was the issue of genuine and counterfeit card transactions and liability issues.

The POS purchase form for the transaction involving 35,000 yuan was signed "Chen". There are obvious differences between the Chinese character writing and the Chinese pinyin spelling of the cardholder Mr. Chen. It belongs to the "Guangdong Province Senior One of the several situations for judging counterfeit card transactions stipulated in Article 15 of the People’s Court’s Guidelines on Several Issues in the Trial of Civil Cases about Counterfeit Card Transactions, that is, item 4: “The signature on the purchase order and other transaction documents is consistent with the record on the bank card. The cardholder's signature is obviously inconsistent. "Based on the fact that Mr. Chen has always held the credit card and called the police afterwards, it can be determined that the credit card transaction involved in the case was a counterfeit card transaction.

Since this case is a counterfeit card transaction, the principal and interest of the arrears involved in the case are not caused by the cardholder's breach of contract, and the cardholder should not bear liability for breach of contract.

The Chancheng Court analyzed the issue of liability as follows:

The cardholder was not at fault

First of all, in this case, there was no evidence that the cardholder Mr. Chen did not properly keep his personal identity information and bank card password. At the same time, after discovering abnormal transactions on the bank card involved in the case, he contacted the card-issuing bank, found a POS purchase order that was not signed by him, and went to the public security agency to report the case. He had fulfilled his obligations and had no obvious fault. . It is not responsible for the repayment of the principal and interest involved in the case. However, after the transaction abnormality occurred and the alarm was reported, the credit card was not reported as lost, so the resulting worry-free value-added service fee of 12 yuan should be reimbursed.

There is no evidence that the acquiring bank is at fault

Secondly, it is the card-issuing bank that has all the cardholder’s information. According to Article 6.10 of the “UnionPay Card Business Operation Regulations”, when swiping a card for a transaction , the acquirer uses the response given by the card issuer as the basic information for transaction confirmation.

Refer to the relevant provisions of the "Special Merchant Acceptance of UnionPay Card Business Agreement": If the cardholder's signature is obviously inconsistent or the terminal displays "Contact the Card Issuing Bank (01)", Party C (Special Merchant) shall contact Party B ( Acquirer) Contact the card issuer to confirm the cardholder’s identity.

It can be seen that the responsibility for verifying the identity of the cardholder and identifying the authenticity of the card lies with the card-issuing bank, and only the issuing bank that has all the cardholder information has the information and technical support to identify genuine and counterfeit cards. . Therefore, there is no evidence or facts showing that the acquiring bank was at fault for the counterfeit card transactions involved in the case.

The merchant and card-issuing bank should be responsible for this case

The signature review clause of the "UnionPay Card Business Operation Regulations" and the aforementioned "Special Merchant Acceptance of UnionPay Card Business Agreement" both require special merchants to Cardholder signature must be reviewed. Liang, the operator of an electrical appliance store specializing in the counterfeit card transaction, was legally summoned by this court, but did not appear in court to respond, nor did he provide evidence to prove that he had fulfilled his obligation to verify the cardholder's signature. Therefore, the electrical appliance store was also at fault for the counterfeit card transaction involved in the case. Based on the comprehensive degree of fault, the card-issuing bank and Liang each bear 50% responsibility for the principal loss of 35,000 yuan in the counterfeit card transaction involved in the case.

About interest. The counterfeit card transaction involved in the case occurred on March 14, 2013. After the cardholder raised an objection to the abnormal transaction to the card-issuing bank, the card-issuing bank did not take effective measures to prevent the expansion of losses, which resulted in the occurrence of The interest for more than 4 years totals 39,118.04 yuan. The card-issuing bank shall be fully responsible for this expanded interest loss.

The Chancheng Court ordered Liang to pay 17,021.58 yuan to the card-issuing bank; Mr. Chen should pay 12 yuan to the card-issuing bank for other fees.