伪银行卡交易纠纷中的民事法律责任分析

发布时间：2018-03-10 20:41

本文选题：伪银行卡　切入点：举证责任　出处：《华东政法大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：随着银行卡交易的迅速发展,伪银行卡交易纠纷也层出不穷。因为没有明确的法律规定,目前的司法实务中法官的裁判尺度不一,判决情况各异。本文正是在这样的背景下,从我国伪银行卡交易案件的司法现状出发,对50份来自于不同法院的伪卡交易案件进行了梳理,归纳出伪银行卡交易纠纷中的争议焦点,并通过相关的分析研究给出相应的判案路径,以期为法院、持卡人以及银行提供更有价值的实务参考。本论文主要分为四个部分:第一部分对伪银行卡交易纠纷的司法现状进行了梳理分析。纵观我国司法实践中的案件审理情况,案件审理过程中的争议焦点集中在以下几个方面:是否能够适用先刑后民原则;伪银行卡交易纠纷中的举证责任分配问题;当事人之间的责任承担。第二部分主要关注伪银行卡交易纠纷中先刑后民原则的适用问题。先是对我国伪银行卡交易纠纷中先刑后民原则的适用现状作了梳理分析,然后重点解析了先刑后民原则的适用条件。依据我国法律法规以及最高院司法解释中确立的原则,要在案件中适用先刑后民原则需具备事实具有同一性的条件,即两种法律关系是一种竞合关系,而非牵连关系。最后得出结论,伪银行卡交易纠纷只是刑事、民事法律关系牵连案件,不属于同一法律关系,不能适用先刑后民原则驳回起诉或中止审理。而且这类案件在司法实践中侦查难度颇大,如果等待刑事案件侦查完毕后再处理,不利于司法的公正和效率。第三部分探讨了伪卡交易案件中举证责任的分配问题。伪银行卡交易案件中,主要涉及证明卡片真伪及密码泄露谁之过错两个方面的举证责任,而就现状可以看出,我国各地法院在案件裁判过程中对当事人双方举证责任的分配还存在较大的差异。根据我国民诉法的规定,一般情况下适用的举证原则为“谁主张、谁举证”原则;依据一些法律规定或一般常识和平时生活经验法则能推定的适用“推定原则”;在没有法律法规及相关司法解释情况下,由法官在公平和诚实信用原则的基础上适用“合理分配原则”。根据上述举证责任分配原则,在真伪卡交易事实的举证方面,持卡人对银行卡存在未丢失,卡内资金丢失,银行卡使用记录、挂失记录或报案证明,对密码尽到正常人注意义务等事实负有举证责任;银行对交易环境安全,POS签购单,持卡人迟延挂失,存在道德风险等事实负有举证责任。对于密码泄露的举证责任,根据谁主张谁举证的原则,银行应对己方提出的持卡人对密码外泄存在过错承担举证责任。有说法认为因密码的私有性,适用该原则有失公平。但是无论从经济实力上看还是从专业水平方面分析,银行都显然具有更优的举证能力。第四部分重点分析了当事人之间的责任承担问题。对于伪银行卡交易案件的处理,我国各地法院的裁判标准不一,在持卡人和发卡行双方的责任承担比例上意见各异,其中判决银行承担主要责任的占多数。伪银行卡交易纠纷中的法律关系往往比较复杂,银行方通常会提出追加特约商户或取款行为案件当事人的要求。由于持卡人诉求发卡行承担赔偿责任系基于两者间的储蓄存款合同关系,该类案件的当事人应为储蓄存款合同的当事人,即持卡人和发卡行双方,不需要追加取款行或特约商户等第三方为当事人。在伪银行卡交易案件中,银行承担责任的义务来源主要有三个方面:一是基于法律规定银行应对储户存款履行的安全保障义务,二是基于合同约定银行应尽的全面履行合同的义务,三是基于诚实信用原则银行应承担的合同附随义务。无论是从损失产生的原因出发、还是从损失承担的后果方面分析亦或是站在损失防控的角度而言,都应由银行对伪银行卡交易带来的损失承担主要责任。而具体责任承担范围的确定还要看持卡人是否具有过错。对于伪银行卡交易纠纷中相关格式条款的效力问题,根据通常理解,免责条款的适用,必须具备一个前提,即持卡人从事取款消费活动使用的是真实的银行卡,而纠纷中涉及的的伪银行卡交易显然不属于正常的真卡消费活动,明显不应适用该规则。持卡人在伪银行卡交易案件中是不是应当承担责任要看其是否具有过错。如果持卡人存在与第三人合谋进行伪卡交易的情形,则应承担全部民事责任;如果持卡人存在不规范用卡行为足以造成密码外泄的,一般需要对银行卡内资金损失承担一半以上的责任。司法实务中的伪银行卡交易依据当事人双方的过错程度可以分为三种情形:在银行卡信息与密码的外泄完全因银行系统、设备存在安全隐患所致的情况下,发卡行需承担全部责任;在银行卡信息与密码的泄露完全因持卡人自身原因所致的情况下,持卡人应根据其过错程度承担一半以上甚至全部的责任;在银行卡信息与密码的泄露与持卡人和发卡行两方均有关系的情况下,则应根据双方的过错行为对损害发生及扩大所起作用的大小来判断,依据发卡行的过失程度,分别判决其承担80%以上,70%以上以及50%以上的责任。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of bank card transactions, false bank card transaction disputes also emerge in an endless stream. Because there is no clear legal provisions, the judicial practice in the current referee scale a judgment are different. This article is in this background, starting from the status quo of China's judicial pseudo bank card transaction case, the pseudo card trading cases from 50 different courts are summarized, summed up the focus of controversy of pseudo bank card transaction disputes in the case, the path and through the analysis of related research are given, in order to provide reference for the practice court, the more valuable the cardholder and the bank. This thesis is mainly divided into four parts: the first part summarizes the judicial status of bank card transaction disputes false. Throughout our judicial practice in the hearing of the case, the focus of controversy during the trial in the following aspects: whether To apply criminal case first principle; the distribution of the burden of proof pseudo bank card transaction in the dispute between the parties; the responsibility for problems. The second part mainly focuses on the pseudo bank card transaction disputes in the criminal case first principles. First made systematic analysis for the status quo of China's bank card transaction disputes in pseudo first punishment the principle, and then analyzes the applicable conditions of criminal case first principle. According to the establishment of China's laws and regulations and the Supreme Court judicial interpretation principle, to apply the principle of first sentence after the required fact has the same conditions in the case, the two kinds of legal relationship is a relationship between. Instead of the implicated relation. The final conclusion, the pseudo bank card transaction dispute is only criminal, civil legal relationship in the case, does not belong to the same legal relationship, cannot apply the first sentence after the principle of prosecution dismissed or suspend the trial. But this kind of The cases in the judicial practice of investigation is quite difficult, if wait for the investigation of criminal cases after treatment, is not conducive to judicial fairness and efficiency. The third part discusses the allocation of the burden of proof in the case of pseudo card transactions. Pseudo bank card transaction cases, mainly related to the authenticity of identification card and password leak proof two aspects of who the fault, while the current situation can be seen, the courts all over the country in the case in the process of allocation of the burden of both parties and the parties there is a big difference. According to the provisions of China's civil procedure law, proof of principle applicable in general as "who advocates, who the burden of proof" principle; according to some law or common sense and the usual life is "the rule of thumb to presumption principle of presumption"; in the absence of laws and regulations and related judicial interpretation case by the judge based on the principle of fairness and good faith. Application of "reasonable allocation principles. According to the distribution of burden of proof in principle, authenticity card transaction rules of burden of proof, the cardholder is not lost on the bank card, bank card card capital loss, loss of use records, record or report proved that the password to do to the normal duty of care in the burden of bank security; the trading environment, POS sign purchase orders, the cardholder delay loss, the burden of proof for the existence of moral hazard and other facts. The burden of proof password leak, according to who advocated the principle of burden of proof, the cardholder's Bank to the password leakage fault burden. There's a saying that because the password privacy, application the principle of fairness. But in terms of the economic strength is analyzed from the professional level, the bank has the burden of proof is better. The fourth part focuses on the analysis of the parties Take responsibility for treatment. Between the pseudo bank card transaction cases, the courts all over the country the referee standards, bear the proportion of different opinions in the cardholder and the issuing bank the responsibilities of both parties, the bank decision to bear the main responsibility of the majority. The legal relationship of pseudo bank card transaction disputes in the bank is often more complex. We usually make additional parties merchants or withdrawals behavior cases. Due to the cardholder demands the issuing bank bear compensation liability system between the savings deposit contract based on the relationship between the parties in such cases should be the savings deposit contract, the cardholder and the issuing bank sides, does not require additional withdrawals or merchants. The three party for the party. In the pseudo bank card transaction case, the source of obligations of banks to take responsibility mainly has three aspects: one is the legal provisions of banks to depositors deposit based on Shall perform the obligation of safety guarantee, two is the contract between the bank should fully fulfill the contract obligations based on the principle of honesty and credit is three, the bank should bear the collateral obligation of contract. It is based on the reasons of arising from the loss, or consequences analysis from bear the loss or loss of control in terms of station the bank shall, all of the pseudo bank card trading losses bear the primary responsibility. Determine the specific responsibility range depends on whether the cardholder has fault. The validity of the pseudo bank card related trade disputes in terms of format, according to the usual understanding of exception clauses, must have a premise, namely the cardholder in cash is real consumption activities of the use of bank cards, and disputes involving pseudo bank card transaction is not really normal card, obviously should not apply the rules to. Card in pseudo bank card transaction is not the case shall be liable to see whether it has a fault. If the cardholder has third people with conspiracy to counterfeit card trading situations, they should bear all the civil liability; if the cardholder is not sufficient to cause the behavior specification for card password leak, the general need to take more than half responsible for bank card money loss. Pseudo banks in judicial practice according to the parties of the transaction card fault can be divided into three categories: the leakage of bank card information and passwords completely because of the banking system, the equipment security risks caused by the case, the issuing bank should bear full responsibility; in the disclosure of the bank card information and password completely due to the cardholder own reason, the cardholder should according to their degree of fault bear half or full responsibility; in the disclosure of the bank card information and passwords If it is related to the two party of the cardholder and the issuing bank, it should be judged according to the size of the action of the occurrence and expansion of the damage according to the fault behavior of the two sides. According to the negligence of the issuing bank, it shall be judged to bear more than 80%, 70% or more responsibilities.

【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】