谁偷了我的银行卡?

如今银行卡的使用日益广泛，而与此相关的经济犯罪也常有发生。在本期的《无限播客》中，我们就来看看这样一个案例：当银行卡和身份证都在持卡人手上时，犯罪嫌疑人竟能利用漏洞，按照正规的银行业务办理程序盗取了卡里的款项。这究竟是如何发生的呢？造成的经济损失，是由银行还是持卡人承担呢？面对随时可能发生的财产危险，我们又有什么办法预防呢？

Host： Zhou Yuanhong is from Central China’s Hunan Province. He and his wife Lu Jing were unemployed workers for many years before they came to Shanghai to start their own business. Small as their business was， it has started making quite a bit of money in recent years thanks to the Zhou couple’s hard efforts. The Zhou couple said their business had been going very smoothly until recently， when something absurd happened to them.

Reporter： One afternoon in March， 2013， one of the clients called to tell Zhou Yuanhong that he had 1）remitted the amount due into his bank card. Delighted， the Zhou couple immediately checked their bank account balance by phone. What they heard on the automatic voicemail shocked them and left them 2）flabbergasted. Lu： The voicemail said that our bank card had been 3）nullified. We were shocked. How could it be that our bank card had been 4）struck off？ I had been carrying the card and our ID cards in my own wallet. Both my husband and I had been busying ourselves with our work and neither of us had done anything to have the bank card 5）deregistered.

Reporter： Unable to believe what the voicemail had told them on the phone， the Zhou couple went to a nearby bank right away to double check.

Host： Zhou Yuanhong’s bank card had been stopped and the amount of 160，000 yuan had disappeared into thin air. Zhou’s wife said she had been carrying the bank card and their ID cards in her own purse. There could be no mistake on their part to cause this. Could it be that s o m e t h i n g w e n t wrong with the bank’s checking system？ Wasting no time， Zhou Yuanhong rushed to the issuing bank and asked the clerk to help check the source of the problem.

Reporter： The bank clerk told Zhou Yuanhong that someone had indeed had his bank card deregistered. But who had done so without the card owner’s knowledge？ At Zhou Yuanhong’s request， the bank sorted out their worksheet record for deregistration of the bank card.

Lu： The bank card is here， so are the ID cards， but the money is gone. How could this be explained？

Reporter： According to the bank’s record， Zhou Yuanhong’s band card had indeed been struck off and deregistered 6）on the grounds that the card’s 7）magnetic strip had been damaged. According to the bank clerk， the bank card was deregistered 8）in accordance with all the relevant rules and due diligence procedures， except that the person who called himself Zhou Yuanhong and requested such deregistration the other day was a different person.

Zhou： That was what the bank said. The suspect had used a fake version of an older type of identification card. He also had a bank card 9）forged with the same number as mine. Using these tricks， he had fooled the bank’s clerks.

Reporter： With the bank card struck off， the balance was transferred to the suspect’s new account.

Zhou： The faked card had no magnet. When he had a new card issued， it became quite easy for him to take away my money. He took the money in two installments； the first 50，000 yuan was taken over the bank counter； the second 110，000 yuan was taken from anther place.

Host： Overnight， Zhou Yuanhong’s hard earned money was all gone. The Zhou couple was completely unable to deal with such a bad luck. Sympathetic to their misfortune， the banker suggested that they’d better call the police.

Zhou’s wife said the bank was supposed to be a safe place where they could put away their money without worry or care. However， the suspect， by using fake ID and bank cards， had managed to strike off the real card and steal their money without difficulty. Since it all happened over the bank counter and through the bank’s system，

the Zhou couple held that the bank must be held responsible for their loss.

Reporter： The bank， however， claimed that everything they did was in strict compliance with the relevant rules and procedures.

According to the bank， deregistering a card requires the provision of an ID card， bank card and password. They did not nullify the card until all requirements were met and all necessary means and documents had been provided. Yet strict and 10）prudent as the procedure was， the fact remained that the suspect had fooled the bank and stolen the money from the victim’s account. Where was the leak hole？ Zhou Yuanhong said the bank had actually failed to abide by the set procedures and process.

Zhou Yuanhong said the bank’s failure to 11）spot the fake ID card and 12）counterfeit bank card was the direct cause for his loss of money. The bank should therefore be 13）irrevocably held 14）accountable for his loss. The bank， on the other hand， insisted that the loss was mainly Zhou Yuanhong’s own fault.

Zhou： The bank showed me the 15）surveillance video 16）footage and pointed out that the suspect knew the correct pin number. He said the deregistration couldn’t have been carried out without his entering the correct pin number. They said that since the suspect had known my pin number， which I had failed to keep safe， all the blame could be attributed to me. If I told the pin number to you， would you be able to withdraw the money？ Of course not. You wouldn’t be able to get the money if just one of the following three was missing： ID card， the original bank card and the pin number.

Reporter： In response to this question， the bank explained that t h e y h a d n o I D card verification equipment， nor could they distinguish the genuineness of a card with its magnetic strip damaged. Under such circumstances， the pin number was the only thing they could rely on for the safe identification of the bank card’s owner.

Zhou Yuanhong said the bank must be held irrevocably accountable for the loss of his money. It was the bank’s failure to spot the fakeness in the ID card and the bank card the suspect had presented that had resulted in the loss.

Zhou： I went to the bank to demand a solution. I had expected that they would as least offer me some compensation. The bank， however， seemed to turn a deaf ear to my request. They even refused to answer my phone call and insisted on 17）postponing everything till the police broke the case.

Host： The bank insisted that it was Zhou Yuanhong’s failure to keep his pin number safe that had resulted in the incident. Zhou Yuanhong， on the other hand， blamed the bank for their 18）omissions in checking and control that gave the suspect access to his money. Now the suspect had run away with Zhou Yuanhong’s money. Could anything be done to 19）retrieve Zhou Yuanhong’s loss？ Or must he accept the desolate situation so long as the suspect remained 20）at large？

Reporter： Zhou Yuanhong said that although he had gone to talk with the bank time and again， the bank didn’t show the slightest intent of assuming any responsibility for his loss. To protect his own interest， Zhou Yuanhong filed a lawsuit against the bank.

During the court session， Zhou Yuanhong held that it was the bank’s omission in checking and control that had caused his loss of money. Evidence indicated that the bank was indeed responsible for some omissions while checking and reviewing the documents required for 21）implementing the deregistration.

According to the judge， the bank would have been able to 22）differentiate the fake card from the real one had it been prudent enough. The fake one had quite a few 23）defects in comparison with the real one. So the court held that the bank was at fault for 24）inadequate efforts.

The court also acknowledged， however， that 25）disclosure of the pin number was another key factor in the loss of the money.

After hearing the case， the court held that the 26）defendant had failed to spot the fake ID and bank cards and thus 27）violated its due diligence obligation. On the other hand， with the customer having accepted the bank rule that 28）transactions be effectively made with the correct pin number entered， in order to take away the money， the 29）plaintiff could therefore be 30）deemed partially responsible for the loss. The court decided that the bank should pay 30% or 48，000 yuan in compensation for the plaintiff’s losses.

Since the suspect was still at large， no one has any idea yet how he had faked Zhou Yuanhong’s ID and bank cards and where he got the pin number.

H o s t ： W i t h b a n k cards more and more widely used these days， disputes between banks and bankcard holders are also arising more and more frequently. Ascribing the accountabilities and dividing the responsibilities between the bank and its customers has become a difficult issue now facing courts.

Legal experts say that bank cards， while providing people with facilities and conveniences， may also entail risks. The issuing bank and card holders shall have to be aware of such risks and take adequate 31）precautions against them.

Legal expert： For instance， most bankcards have a magnetic stripe. It’s advisable to upgrade them to chip cards. More technical measures shall be taken for protection of bank information and prevention of bank account theft and use of counterfeit bank cards.

Secondly， in a time of instant access to information， more efforts shall be made for the protection of personal information. The state shall better 32）safeguard towards public security. Individuals shall pay more attention to keep their personal information safe.

On the other hand， the bank shall step up its due diligence efforts， 33）streamline and 34）optimize its rules and procedures so as to fully perform the obligations it bears towards the customers.

主持人：周远宏（音译）来自华中地区的湖南省。他和妻子卢静（音译）来上海创业之前已经下岗多年。虽然生意规模不大，但在周氏夫妇的努力经营下，近年来赚了不少钱。周氏夫妇说他们的生意一直很顺利，直到最近，一件蹊跷的事情发生在他们身上。

记者：2013年3月的一天下午，一位客户给周远宏打电话，告知已经将欠款汇到他的银行卡上。高兴之余，夫妻俩立刻拨打了银行电话进行查询。然而（通过电话）自动语音系统（查询的结果）把他们吓到了，让他们大吃一惊。

卢：语音说我们的银行卡已无效。我们感到很奇怪，银行卡怎么会被注销了呢？我一直把卡和我们的身份证放在钱包里。我和丈夫都忙于工作，我们都没有去销卡。

记者：对电话查询的结果难以相信的周氏夫妇立即到附近的银行再次进行查询。

主持人：周远宏的银行卡被人注销了，卡里的1 6万元也不翼而飞。周的妻子说银行卡和身份证一直在自己的钱包里，对此他们没有过错，是不是银行的查询系统出了问题呢？事不宜迟，周远宏赶紧跑到当时办卡的银行网点，向工作人员求助，想要查到问题的根源。

记者：银行工作人员告诉周远宏，确实有人办理过他这张卡的注销业务。但是谁背着卡主做出这样的事呢？在周远宏的要求下，银行调取了这张卡被注销时的工作记录。

卢：卡在这里，身份证也在这里，钱没了，这怎么解释呢？

记者：在银行的工作记录上，周远宏的这张银行卡确实已被注销，而注销的理由是磁条损坏。

据银行工作人员说，这张卡的注销业务办理时符合银行相关规定和程序，除了今天这位“周远宏”和那天来办理注销业务自称是“周远宏”的那位不是同一个人。

周：银行说，犯罪嫌疑人使用伪造的一代身份证，同时持有一张和我卡号相同的假银行卡，使用这些伎俩蒙混过关了。

记者：银行卡被注销后，卡上的余额被犯罪嫌疑人转移到新卡上。

周：伪造的卡没有磁性。他换了张新卡后，取走我的钱就轻而易举了。他分两笔取走了钱，第一笔5万在银行柜台提取，第二笔11万在其他地方提取。

主持人：一夜之间，周远宏辛苦攒下的积蓄被人一掏而空。周氏夫妇无论如何都无法接受这样的厄运。银行工作人员同情他们的遭遇，建议他们报警。

周的妻子说他们把钱存进银行，因为这原本是个安全的地方，他们应该放心。然而，犯罪嫌疑人却凭借伪造身份证和假银行卡，成功地注销了真卡，毫无难度地盗取了他们的钱。由于这事发生在银行柜台和通过银行系统办理的，周氏夫妇认为银行应该对他们的损失负责。

记者：然而银行声称他们所做的一切都是严格按照相关规定和程序操作的。

按照银行的操作流程，办理银行卡注销业务需要提供身份证、银行卡和密码，不符合这些条件和无法提供全部必要文件是无法销卡的。尽管办理程序严格且审查谨慎，事实却是疑犯仍蒙混过关，将受害人账户的钱都盗取了。漏洞在哪里？周远宏说是银行没有严格遵守流程操作造成的。

周远宏说银行没有正确鉴别出假身份证和伪造银行卡是造成他损失的直接原因，因此银行毫无疑问负有不可推卸的责任。而另一方面，银行坚持周远宏是造成损失的主要过错方。

周：银行给我看了监控录像，指出犯罪嫌疑人知道正确的卡密码。如果没有输入正确的密码，是不可能销卡成功的。他们说因为疑犯知道我的密码，我没有保管好自己的密码，所以我该负全责。如果我把密码告诉你，你能取走钱吗？当然不能。想要取走钱，身份证、原始银行卡和密码三者缺一不可。

记者：对于这个疑问，银行解释说他们并没有查验身份证真伪的相关设备，而对于已经消磁或者损坏的银行卡，他们也是无法辨别真伪。在这种情况下，密码成为他们识别卡主身份的唯一手段。周远宏说对

于自己存款被盗一事，银行有不可推卸的责任。银行无法辨别犯罪嫌疑人所使用的身份证和银行卡真伪是造成自己财产损失的主要原因。周：我去银行要求他们给个解决方案。我还期望他们或多或少能给我点赔偿。然而银行对我的要求充耳不闻。他们甚至拒绝接听我的电话，坚持拖延等警方破案再解决。

主持人：银行坚持是周远宏没有保管好密码导致了这次事件。而另一方面，周远宏指责银行疏忽审查给了犯罪嫌疑人盗取钱财的可乘之机。如今犯罪嫌疑人卷款潜逃。有什么能挽回周远宏的损失呢？还是只要犯罪嫌疑人却逍遥法外，他就必须自认倒霉呢？

记者：周远宏说尽管他多次与银行交涉，但是银行并没有任何要为他的损失承担责任的意思。为了保障自己的权益，周远宏将银行一纸告上了法庭。

庭审中，周远宏认为，银行在办理业务时，审核不严格是造成自己损失的主要原因。证据显示，当天银行在办理业务时，的确在注销银行卡的资料审核上存在一些疏漏。

法庭认为，如果银行足够审慎，就可以识别这个卡是伪造的，假卡和真卡之间有不少区别。所以法庭认为，银行在这方面具有过错。

然而法庭同时也承认，密码泄露问题也是钱财损失的另一关键因素。

经过对案件的审理，法院认为，被告未能对经过变造的银行卡和伪造的身份证予以识别，违反了谨慎审查义务。另外，银行卡凭密码交易系通行规则，并为持卡人所接受，在取款人输入正确密码取走款项的情况下，原告也应承担部分责任。故法院判决该银行赔偿原告30%的资金损失，共计人民48000元。

由于至今犯罪嫌疑人仍未落网，没人知道周远宏的身份证和银行卡是如何被复制的，密码又是如何泄露的。

主持人：如今银行卡的使用日渐普遍，而由于银行卡所引发的，个人和银行之间的纠纷也越来越频繁发生，在面对这样的案件时，如何做好责任划分，以及责任承担的比例问题，一直是法院判案中的难题。

法律专家提醒，银行卡在给人们带来便利的同时，也存在着一定的风险。而面对银行卡使用中可能存在的风险，开卡银行和持卡人都应该采取充分的防范措施。

法律专家：比如说现在我们大部分银行卡都是磁条卡，升级成芯片卡很有必要。运用更多的科技手段保护银行信息和解决防范银行卡被冒用盗用。

第二个方面呢，在信息化时代，要进一步加强对个人信息安全的保护。除了国家提供更好的公共安全保护之外，个人也要更注意保护自己的信息。

从银行来说，要加强安全审查，精简和优化制度和流程，最大程度地履行保护客户（信息安全）的责任。