复制银行卡案件中存款人民事权益保障探析

发布时间：2018-11-02 16:57

【摘要】：近年来,他人用复制的银行卡盗取存款引起存款人与开户银行之间存款合同纠纷的案件(以下简称“复制银行卡案件”)时常发生。复制银行卡案件发生后,存款人将开户银行告上法庭,开户银行往往以种种理由推脱责任。开户银行以复制银行卡持有人侵犯存款人的财产所有权为由,主张存款人应当向复制银行卡持有人主张返还存款的权利;或以复制银行卡持有人输入正确的密码为由,要求存款人承担相应的责任;或因为此类案件涉及刑事犯罪,主张在司法程序中适用“先刑后民”审理原则。存款人取回存款的道路可谓漫长而艰辛。开户银行的行为和主张是否合法,存款人应当向谁主张权利,主张哪些权利,与存款人民事权益的保障息息相关。笔者将总结复制银行卡案件的争议焦点,并围绕争议焦点进行论述。首先,由于存款合同为无名合同,笔者将对存款合同的性质进行认定,将存款合同认定为借贷合同,从而明确存款的所有权属于开户银行,复制银行卡持有人侵犯了开户银行的财产所有权,而存款人对开户银行的债权并未消灭。其次,笔者将通过分析开户银行和存款人各自的违约行为,明确开户银行和存款人责任的划分。最后,对于“先刑后民”审理原则,笔者将对其适用条件进行简单分析,论证此审理原则在本类案件中不适用。为保障存款人的民事权益,在分析完复制银行卡案件的争议焦点后,笔者还将对复制银行卡案件中存在的法律问题提出完善建议。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the case of depositor and bank of deposit contract dispute caused by other people using copied bank card to steal deposit (hereinafter referred to as "copy bank card case") often occurs. Depositors take bank of deposit to court after copying bank cards, and bank of deposit often shirks responsibility for a variety of reasons. Bank of deposit claims that the depositor should claim the right to return the deposit to the duplicated bank card holder on the grounds that the holder of the replica card infringes upon the property ownership of the depositor. Or on the basis of copying the bank card holder to enter the correct password, the depositor is required to bear the corresponding responsibility; or because this kind of case involves a criminal offence, it is advocated to apply the principle of "the first sentence before the people" in the judicial procedure. Depositors have a long and hard way to get their money back. Whether bank of deposit's actions and claims are legal, which rights should be claimed by depositors, and which rights are closely related to the protection of depositors' civil rights and interests. The author will sum up the dispute focus of the bank card case and discuss the controversy focus. First of all, as the deposit contract is an anonymous contract, the author will confirm the nature of the deposit contract and the deposit contract as a loan contract, so as to make it clear that the ownership of the deposit belongs to bank of deposit. Duplicated card holders violated bank of deposit's property rights, while depositors' claims on bank of deposit were not wiped out. Secondly, the author will clarify the division of bank of deposit and depositor liability by analyzing bank of deposit and depositors' respective breach of contract. Finally, the author will analyze the principle of "first sentence before people", and prove that this principle is not applicable in this kind of cases. In order to protect the civil rights and interests of depositors, after analyzing the dispute focus of the bank card cases, the author will put forward some suggestions to perfect the legal problems existing in the copying bank card cases.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.6

【相似文献】