银行卡未授权交易损失分配规则研究

发布时间：2018-05-30 08:49

本文选题：银行卡 + 未授权交易　；参考：《南京大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：银行卡未授权交易损失频发,现行相关立法仅为分布在多部法律法规规章中的原则性条文,不仅存在效力冲突,在诸多关键问题上也不甚清楚。矛盾与缺失的立法状况导致法官在处理该类案件的裁判思维、法律适用与判决结果各异,无论判决损失结果由谁承担都存在着法律依据不足、论证不够严密的缺陷,判决由经济实力单薄的持卡人承担损失的结果也容易引起社会舆论的不满。理论界倾向于借鉴银行业发达的英美法系国家制度,以(金融)消费者角度对持卡人进行倾斜性保护,但在进行法律移植时对作为制度移植的理论基础、可行性等未进行充分论证,既未考虑在我国将持卡人作为(金融)消费者进行保护是否适应当前的法律体系,会不会造成法律适用的混乱,也未深入探讨在我国对持卡人进行倾斜性保护的合理性与必要性,如何依据本国现状对国外制度进行适宜本土化的改造。银行卡未授权交易的损失分配规则的研究价值在于明确银行与持卡人损失分配的理念与具体规则,一方面通过损失承担使持卡人与银行间的利益分配达到法学所追求的公平正义的局面,另一方面避免持卡人与银行因损失分配不明而消极使用与推广银行卡,不利于我国现代支付体系的发展。文章主要分为三个部分。第一部分从学理、司法、立法的角度分析了银行卡未授权交易行为的争议及其法律原因。学理上在对银行卡法律关系分析清楚的前提下,尝试用传统民法理论中的无权代理与债权准占有分析未授权交易的行为性质。并探讨了银行卡未授权交易当事人权利义务的不确定性,交易中密码使用缺陷承担主体不清、银行卡及密码保护义务性质不明以及解决传统未授权交易问题的交易安全保护理念在此问题上的应用受到质疑为不确定性的具体表现。司法实践中,银行卡未授权交易案件的审理思路也存在着困惑与分歧,主要体现为密码使用是否视为本人行为或授权依据、密码泄露举证责任分配不明以及义务履行过错比较对损失分配的影响。这些问题上不同法官存在着不同的观点,且未出现具有权威性或令人说服的解释。司法上的困惑与分歧来源于立法的缺失与矛盾。现行法律法规对银行卡未授权交易损失分配没有集中、统一的规定,相关规定散见于多部法律法规之中,且存在着相互冲突的现象。例如在银行卡使用的关键——私人密码(电子签名)效力问题上法律、中国人民银行与银行业监督管理委员会(以下简称"银监会")颁布的规章规定就不一致。正因为银行卡未授权交易当事人权利义务具有不确定性,立法上缺乏统一、专门的规定、司法中存在如此多的困惑与分析,银行卡未授权交易损失分配规则才具有了研究的价值与意义。在分析银行卡未授权交易行为性质,确定其存在争议的法律原因之后,第二部分尝试从理论上探讨我国银行卡未授权交易损失分配规则的理念与原则。首先对英美法系银行业发达国家未授权交易责任分配规则进行了借鉴,并发现银行业发达国家对于此问题的规定具有制度上的相通性,都对持卡人进行了倾斜性保护。结合国内外关于此问题的研究思路,文章尝试从制度激励、风险分散与金融消费者保护三方面探讨这种对持卡人进行倾斜性保护在我国适用的合理性与必要性,同时从立法理念角度反思,我国现行损失分配规则存在着不足以提高持卡人谨慎注意水平、难以促进银行卡技术进步、不利于现代支付体系发展的缺陷。结合以上分析,最终提出应将损失最小化、损失有效分散与利益平衡作为我国银行卡未授权交易损失分配的三项基本原则。第三部分试图构建银行卡未授权交易损失分配的具体制度。主要涉及双方权利义务的明确、交易是否已获授权的判定标准以及具体的分配规则。银行与持卡人法律关系中,持卡人负有妥善保管义务与及时通知义务,银行则负有安全保障义务与谨慎审查义务。交易授权的判断标准应取消现行以正确密码使用作为唯一标准的做法,尝试从多角度设置科学、合理的判断依据。具体分配规则包括责任限额条款、银行与持卡人的免责事由以及诉讼中的举证责任分配与归责原则的明确。
[Abstract]:The current related legislation is only the principle articles distributed in the rules and regulations of many laws and regulations. There is not only the conflict of effect, but also the key issues. The legislative situation of the contradiction and lack leads to the judges' thinking in dealing with the cases, and the application of the law and the result of the judgment are different. On the result of the loss of judgment, there are insufficient legal basis and insufficient proof, and the result of the loss is easily caused by the poor economic strength of the cardholder. The theorists tend to draw on the developed Anglo American legal system of the banking industry to enter the cardholder in the perspective of (financial) consumers. However, there is no sufficient demonstration of the theoretical basis and feasibility of the transplantation of the system when the legal transplantation is carried out. It does not consider whether the protection of the cardholder as a (financial) consumer is adapted to the current legal system in our country, and will not cause the confusion of the legal application, nor does it further discuss the entry of the cardholders in our country. The rationality and necessity of the slope protection, how to transform the foreign system according to the status of the country. The research value of the loss allocation rule of the bank card unauthorized transaction is to clear the idea and specific rules of the loss distribution of the bank and the cardholder. On the one hand, the loss is taken to make the cardholder and the bank profit. The benefit distribution achieves the fair and just situation pursued by law. On the other hand, it avoids the negative use and promotion of bank cards for the cardholders and banks because of the loss allocation, which is not conducive to the development of the modern payment system in China. The article is divided into three parts. The first part analyses the unauthorized transaction of the bank card from the perspective of science, justice and legislation. On the premise of clear analysis of the legal relationship of the bank card, it tries to analyze the behavior nature of the unauthorized transaction by using the unauthorized agent and creditor's right in the traditional civil law theory, and discusses the uncertainty of the rights and obligations of the parties not authorized to deal with the bank card, and the use of the defects in the transaction in the transaction. It is not clear, the nature of the bank card and the password protection obligation is unknown, and the idea of dealing with the problem of traditional unauthorized transaction has been questioned for the specific performance of uncertainty. In judicial practice, there are also puzzles and differences in the thinking way of the bank card unauthorized transaction cases. Whether or not the code is regarded as the basis of my behavior or authorization, the unidentified allocation of the burden of proof, and the effect of the obligation to perform the fault comparison on the distribution of the loss. Contradictions. The current laws and regulations have not concentrated on the allocation of the unauthorized transaction loss of the bank card. The relevant provisions are scattered in many laws and regulations, and there are conflicting phenomena. For example, the key to the use of the bank card - the validity of the private cipher (electronic signature), the people's Bank of China and the banking supervision management The rules and regulations issued by the Council (hereinafter referred to as the "CBRC") are not consistent. Because of the uncertainty of the rights and obligations of the parties not authorized by the bank card, there is a lack of unity and special provisions in the legislation. There are so many puzzles and analyses in the judicature. After analyzing the nature of the unauthorized transaction behavior of the bank card and determining the legal reasons for its dispute, the second part tries to theoretically discuss the concept and principle of the unauthorized transaction loss distribution rules of the bank card in our country. First, we draw lessons from the rules of the unauthorized transaction responsibility distribution in the developed countries of the Anglo American legal system, and find out the rules of the distribution of the unauthorized transaction liability in the developed countries of the Anglo American law system. In the developed countries of the banking industry, the provisions on this issue have institutional compatibility, and the cardholders are all inclined to protect them. Combined with the research ideas about this problem at home and abroad, the article tries to discuss the application of this kind of inclined protection to the cardholder in China from three aspects of system incentive, risk dispersion and financial consumer protection. Rational and necessary, at the same time, from the perspective of legislative ideas, the current rules of loss distribution in China are not sufficient to improve the level of prudent attention of the cardholders, and it is difficult to promote the technological progress of the bank card, and is not conducive to the development of modern payment system. As the three basic principles of non authorized transaction loss allocation in China's bank card. The third part tries to establish a specific system for the loss distribution of the unauthorized transaction of the bank card. It mainly involves the clear rights and obligations of the two parties, whether the transaction has been authorized and the specific distribution rules. In the legal relationship between the bank and the cardholder, the cardholder is negative. The bank has the obligation of proper safekeeping and the obligation of timely notification. The bank has the obligation of security and the duty of careful examination. The judgment standard of the transaction authorization should cancel the current practice of using the correct password as the only standard, and try to set the scientific and reasonable basis for judging from the multi angle. The specific distribution rules include the liability limit clause, the bank and the holding. The reasons for the exemption of the card holder and the principle of the distribution of the burden of proof and the principle of liability fixation in the lawsuit.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.281

【相似文献】