In daily life, if a depositor’s card is stolen, how should you collect evidence and stop losses?

Do these six things immediately if your bank card is stolen

Under normal circumstances, if a depositor finds that his bank card has been stolen, he can follow the following six steps as soon as possible:

1. Keep evidence that the card has not left the person

The simplest way is to go to a nearby bank branch or ATM machine to carry out deposits, withdrawals, inquiries and other transactions, and keep the receipts.

2. Call the bank customer service to report the loss and stop the loss

3. Ask the bank about the method, time, location, and account information of the other party in the transaction, and note down the customer service staff if necessary Number; for inter-bank transactions, you can retrieve the voucher from China UnionPay.

4. Take your bank card, relevant documents and personal identification documents to the public security department to report the crime.

5. Take the receipt for filing the case and negotiate with the bank or third-party payment platform

6. If the problem is still unresolved, consult a lawyer to file a lawsuit.

, but also to improve awareness of anti-theft and brushing.

Industry insider Qiu Wei: Don’t easily tell third parties your ID number, certificate number, consumption text messages, and verification text messages; don’t easily click on links to websites that come from unknown sources.

Related news:

A woman’s bank deposit of 770,000 yuan was robbed on the same day and she was sentenced to full compensation of principal and interest

Ms. Cheng is from Bozhou, Anhui, and lives in Kunming Work. Since September 2015, she has been fighting for her 770,000 yuan deposit to be stolen. Recently, her unremitting efforts finally paid off. The Kunming Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment: the bank where the account was opened shall fully compensate her losses. and corresponding interest.

770,000 was stolen on the day of deposit

In December 2014, Ms. Cheng went to Kunming Panjiawan Branch of a bank (hereinafter referred to as "Panjiawan Branch") to apply for A bank debit card.

On August 24, 2015, Ms. Cheng deposited 770,000 yuan onto this card.

On September 1, 2015, when Ms. Cheng took this card to the bank to withdraw money, she found that there was only 0.57 yuan left on the card. She hurriedly went to the Panjiawan branch to inquire, and successively contacted Kunming The police and Songming police reported the case.

Panjiawan Branch provided detailed consumption and withdrawal details: On August 24, 2015, on the day when Ms. Cheng’s deposit arrived, she spent 100 yuan in Hangzhou, Zhejiang; and then spent 200 yuan in Shenzhen. ; After that, five more consumer transactions occurred in Shanghai, totaling more than 60,000 yuan. The next day, 19 transactions took place in Zhejiang, Shanghai, Shenzhen and other places, with a total of 310,000 yuan taken away. In the following days, another 97 transactions occurred, and some money was withdrawn from ATMs in other places.

The phone number reserved for the bank card was changed

Investigation and verification by the Yunnan Banking Regulatory Bureau: On August 21, 2015, a customer went to the Huanglong Branch of a bank in Songming County with a temporary ID card I applied for a debit card, and the temporary ID card information I held was almost the same as Ms. Cheng’s ID card. The name, gender, age, and place of origin were all the same, except that “Bozhou” in Anhui was written as “Haozhou”. At the same time, the woman also changed Ms. Cheng’s reserved phone number, resulting in no text message notification on Ms. Cheng’s mobile phone when her deposit was stolen.

The court ordered the bank to compensate the bank for 770,000 yuan in deposits.

After the deposit was stolen, Ms. Cheng took Panjiawan Branch to court and asked the defendant to compensate the defendant for 770,000 yuan in deposits. The Wuhua District People's Court made a first-instance judgment and rejected Ms. Cheng's claim. Ms. Cheng refused to accept the first-instance judgment and appealed to Kunming Intermediate Court.

The Kunming Intermediate People’s Court determined that on August 21, 2015, the person who applied to open an account and change Ms. Cheng’s account was not Ms. Cheng herself, and the bank had authorized the change of the phone number and information reserved by the bank in Ms. Cheng’s account. fault.

Since August 21, 2015, she has lost control of her account. From August 24, 2015 to August 31, 2015, in the bank payment transactions that occurred with Ms. Cheng’s debit card, the transaction time occurred multiple times. In the early morning, the transaction provinces and cities involved Zhejiang, Shenzhen, Yunnan, and Shanghai. Transactions across provinces and cities occurred many times in a very short period of time. It was impossible for Ms. Cheng to conduct the transactions with a real card. Because Panjiawan Sub-branch authorized the change of Ms. Cheng's bank reserved phone number without confirming that it was Ms. Cheng herself, the Panjiawan Sub-branch was unable to know in time when the funds in Ms. Cheng's account changed and lost control of the account. It cannot provide evidence to prove that it has exercised due security protection for the payment of funds in Ms. Cheng's account involved in the case, and the bank should bear responsibility for the unknown expenditure of funds in Ms. Cheng's account.

According to this, the Kunming Intermediate People's Court recently made a final judgment, revoking the first-instance judgment of the Wuhua Court, and the Panjiawan Branch compensated Ms. Cheng's 770,000 yuan deposit and bore the corresponding interest.

A man in Beijing was compensated NT$130,000 for having his bank card stolen, and "withdrawing money nearby" became key evidence

After discovering that his bank card had been stolen, a man in Beijing Lu hurriedly withdraw money nearby, which became key evidence to prove that the bank card was stolen, and he was eventually compensated 130,000 yuan.

Claim for RMB 130,000 due to stolen bank card. Get ready-made key evidence nearby

In April 2014, Lv applied for a debit card at a bank. On December 6 of the same year, he received a text message reminder informing his debit card that a transaction amounting to 45,000 yuan occurred at 17:48:07 that day, and another transaction amounting to 85,000 yuan occurred 39 seconds later. transaction.

After receiving the text message reminder, Lu went to the nearest ATM machine to make two cash withdrawals, called the bank’s customer service number to negotiate, and then reported the case to the public security department. Subsequently, Lu sued the card-issuing bank to the court, requiring the card-issuing bank to compensate for the loss of 130,000 yuan in stolen deposits and the corresponding loss of interest.

The public security agency discovered that a transaction amounting to 45,000 yuan was completed through a "Zhipaytong" card swiping machine. The payee was Fan and the location was located in Yunnan Province; while another transaction amounted to 85,000 yuan. The transaction of RMB 10,000 was completed through a POS machine by swiping the card. The payee was a building materials store and the transaction location was in Wuhan.

Neither of the transaction locations for the two amounts of money were in Beijing. According to common sense, it is difficult for Lu to use the same debit card to travel to and from three places at the same time. Based on this, the court determined that the disputed transaction on the debit card involved was conducted by someone else using a counterfeit bank card.

The court pointed out in its judgment that the legal relationship between the bank and Lu was a contract, and the card-issuing bank was obliged to protect the safety of depositors' deposits. The two fraudulent transactions involved were completed using counterfeit cards at service facilities provided by banks or approved by banks. The inability of the bank card system to effectively distinguish between genuine and counterfeit cards was an important reason for the fraud. Accordingly, the court supported Lv’s claim.

"After receiving a text message reminder of abnormal account expenditures, Lu immediately withdrew money nearby and reported the case to the local police station, obtaining key evidence that he and his bank card were not at the place where the card was swiped when the transaction occurred." Beijing Cheng Guiqin, deputy director of the Second Civil Division of Daxing District Court, said.

Compensation requests for mobile banking password leaks are difficult to obtain support

According to Cheng Guiqin, according to different transaction media, bank card fraud disputes can be divided into card fraud and card fraud. Brush two categories. Card fraud refers to bank cards, credit cards and counterfeit cards obtained through various improper methods such as theft and copying of counterfeit cards, while card fraud refers to online banking and third-party payment platforms. Stealing.

The reporter noticed that due to the “unknown destination” of mobile phone transfers, it is often difficult for courts to support cardholders’ claims for compensation.

In another case, Ye applied for a credit card at a bank in 2012. The transaction method was password-based transactions. At the same time, Ye also applied to the card-issuing bank to open online banking and mobile banking.

At 2:13 a.m. on September 12, 2015, Ye received a text message on his mobile phone, which read: "Leaking the verification code risks theft of funds! Transfer verification code******" . Four minutes later, 50,000 yuan was transferred from Ye’s bank card, and the payee was Gou. On the morning of the same day, Ye reported the case to the public security department, saying that the transfer was not done by himself. During the investigation of the criminal case, Ye sued the card issuer for compensation.

The judge in charge of the case said that when Ye applied for mobile banking, the contract form provided by the bank provided instructions on the safekeeping of important information and the possible risks of mobile banking, which shows that the bank has done its best. Risk warning obligations. The cardholder only proved the fact that his credit card fund account was reduced, but failed to prove that the card-issuing bank committed breach of contract or other behavior that compromised the security of fund transactions during the fund transfer operation process, nor could it prove that the transfer was not performed by himself. Ultimately, the court ruled to reject the plaintiff’s claim.

Abnormal account changes should be done as soon as possible

Cheng Guiqin said that in practice, it is very difficult to determine the fact of bank card fraud. In card-not-present fraud cases, since card-not-present transactions do not use bank cards as the medium, the cardholder’s means of proving the existence of fraud are relatively limited.

In order to prevent bank cards from being stolen or used, the Daxing District Court suggested that cardholders should set a complex password when applying for a bank card and keep it properly. After handling business, they should also shred the receipt completely or keep it by themselves. Keep it to prevent leakage of information. When swiping a card for a transaction, pay attention to whether the card slot has been modified, whether the cashier has repeatedly swiped the card, or whether the mobile phone has received virus text messages and other abnormal behaviors.

The judge suggested that when abnormal changes in the account are discovered, cardholders should do "three things as soon as possible": go to the nearest card-issuing bank service branch ATM machine or bank business premises as soon as possible to prove that the card has not been separated; call as soon as possible Call the card issuing bank’s customer service hotline to handle temporary loss reports; report the case to the local police station as soon as possible.