If it is determined that the credit card transaction involved is a fake card transaction. Then the principal and interest involved in this case are not caused by the cardholder's breach of contract, and the cardholder should not be liable for breach of contract. However, if the cardholder fails to report the loss of the credit card after the transaction is abnormal and reports to the police, the resulting worry-free value-added service fee for using the card should be repaid.
The responsibility of fake card transactions involves cardholders, card issuers, acquiring institutions and special merchants. First of all, according to whether the cardholder provides bank cards and alarm records, and whether the issuing bank, acquiring institution and special merchants provide evidence to prove that the cardholder has not kept the password properly, the cardholder's responsibility can be determined;
Secondly, it is clear that the issuing bank and the acquiring bank are responsible for reviewing and identifying card information and passwords in credit card transactions; Thirdly, consider whether the special merchants have fulfilled their legal and agreed obligations in credit card transactions, and determine the responsibilities of the special merchants; Finally, combined with the above points, determine who will bear the principal and interest loss of the credit card involved and how to bear it.
Extended data:
Mr. Chen of Foshan was sued by the issuing bank because his credit card "owed" the bank 70,000 yuan. The court found that the credit card involved in the case spent RMB 34043. 16 yuan in an electrical shopping mall at 438+03 on March 65, 2003, and the cardholder signed the word "Chen Mou" at the signature of the POS shopping receipt. The credit card involved has been held by Mr. Chen until the trial and has not been reported lost. Now it has stopped because of arrears.
Mr. Chen said that the principal involved was not consumed by himself at all, nor did he authorize others to consume. When he found abnormal consumption, he reported it to the issuing bank and reflected it. Therefore, the above consumption should not be regarded as my consumption, and he should not repay the interest and late fees calculated for this principal.
The Chancheng Court held through trial that the focus of the dispute in this case lies in the transaction and liability of genuine and fake cards. The signature of the POS purchase order involving the transaction of 34043. 16 yuan is "Chen Mou", which is obviously different from the cardholder Mr. Chen's writing Chinese characters or spelling Chinese Pinyin. Based on the fact that Mr. Chen has always held a credit card and called the police afterwards, it can be concluded that the credit card transaction involved is a fake card transaction.
People's Network-Credit card stolen "owed" 70,000? The court awarded 12 yuan.