發(fā)布時間：2018-05-30 08:49

  本文選題：銀行卡 + 未授權(quán)交易�。� 參考：《南京大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：銀行卡未授權(quán)交易損失頻發(fā),現(xiàn)行相關(guān)立法僅為分布在多部法律法規(guī)規(guī)章中的原則性條文,不僅存在效力沖突,在諸多關(guān)鍵問題上也不甚清楚。矛盾與缺失的立法狀況導(dǎo)致法官在處理該類案件的裁判思維、法律適用與判決結(jié)果各異,無論判決損失結(jié)果由誰承擔(dān)都存在著法律依據(jù)不足、論證不夠嚴(yán)密的缺陷,判決由經(jīng)濟實力單薄的持卡人承擔(dān)損失的結(jié)果也容易引起社會輿論的不滿。理論界傾向于借鑒銀行業(yè)發(fā)達(dá)的英美法系國家制度,以(金融)消費者角度對持卡人進(jìn)行傾斜性保護(hù),但在進(jìn)行法律移植時對作為制度移植的理論基礎(chǔ)、可行性等未進(jìn)行充分論證,既未考慮在我國將持卡人作為(金融)消費者進(jìn)行保護(hù)是否適應(yīng)當(dāng)前的法律體系,會不會造成法律適用的混亂,也未深入探討在我國對持卡人進(jìn)行傾斜性保護(hù)的合理性與必要性,如何依據(jù)本國現(xiàn)狀對國外制度進(jìn)行適宜本土化的改造。銀行卡未授權(quán)交易的損失分配規(guī)則的研究價值在于明確銀行與持卡人損失分配的理念與具體規(guī)則,一方面通過損失承擔(dān)使持卡人與銀行間的利益分配達(dá)到法學(xué)所追求的公平正義的局面,另一方面避免持卡人與銀行因損失分配不明而消極使用與推廣銀行卡,不利于我國現(xiàn)代支付體系的發(fā)展。文章主要分為三個部分。第一部分從學(xué)理、司法、立法的角度分析了銀行卡未授權(quán)交易行為的爭議及其法律原因。學(xué)理上在對銀行卡法律關(guān)系分析清楚的前提下,嘗試用傳統(tǒng)民法理論中的無權(quán)代理與債權(quán)準(zhǔn)占有分析未授權(quán)交易的行為性質(zhì)。并探討了銀行卡未授權(quán)交易當(dāng)事人權(quán)利義務(wù)的不確定性,交易中密碼使用缺陷承擔(dān)主體不清、銀行卡及密碼保護(hù)義務(wù)性質(zhì)不明以及解決傳統(tǒng)未授權(quán)交易問題的交易安全保護(hù)理念在此問題上的應(yīng)用受到質(zhì)疑為不確定性的具體表現(xiàn)。司法實踐中,銀行卡未授權(quán)交易案件的審理思路也存在著困惑與分歧,主要體現(xiàn)為密碼使用是否視為本人行為或授權(quán)依據(jù)、密碼泄露舉證責(zé)任分配不明以及義務(wù)履行過錯比較對損失分配的影響。這些問題上不同法官存在著不同的觀點,且未出現(xiàn)具有權(quán)威性或令人說服的解釋。司法上的困惑與分歧來源于立法的缺失與矛盾�，F(xiàn)行法律法規(guī)對銀行卡未授權(quán)交易損失分配沒有集中、統(tǒng)一的規(guī)定,相關(guān)規(guī)定散見于多部法律法規(guī)之中,且存在著相互沖突的現(xiàn)象。例如在銀行卡使用的關(guān)鍵——私人密碼(電子簽名)效力問題上法律、中國人民銀行與銀行業(yè)監(jiān)督管理委員會(以下簡稱"銀監(jiān)會")頒布的規(guī)章規(guī)定就不一致。正因為銀行卡未授權(quán)交易當(dāng)事人權(quán)利義務(wù)具有不確定性,立法上缺乏統(tǒng)一、專門的規(guī)定、司法中存在如此多的困惑與分析,銀行卡未授權(quán)交易損失分配規(guī)則才具有了研究的價值與意義。在分析銀行卡未授權(quán)交易行為性質(zhì),確定其存在爭議的法律原因之后,第二部分嘗試從理論上探討我國銀行卡未授權(quán)交易損失分配規(guī)則的理念與原則。首先對英美法系銀行業(yè)發(fā)達(dá)國家未授權(quán)交易責(zé)任分配規(guī)則進(jìn)行了借鑒,并發(fā)現(xiàn)銀行業(yè)發(fā)達(dá)國家對于此問題的規(guī)定具有制度上的相通性,都對持卡人進(jìn)行了傾斜性保護(hù)。結(jié)合國內(nèi)外關(guān)于此問題的研究思路,文章嘗試從制度激勵、風(fēng)險分散與金融消費者保護(hù)三方面探討這種對持卡人進(jìn)行傾斜性保護(hù)在我國適用的合理性與必要性,同時從立法理念角度反思,我國現(xiàn)行損失分配規(guī)則存在著不足以提高持卡人謹(jǐn)慎注意水平、難以促進(jìn)銀行卡技術(shù)進(jìn)步、不利于現(xiàn)代支付體系發(fā)展的缺陷。結(jié)合以上分析,最終提出應(yīng)將損失最小化、損失有效分散與利益平衡作為我國銀行卡未授權(quán)交易損失分配的三項基本原則。第三部分試圖構(gòu)建銀行卡未授權(quán)交易損失分配的具體制度。主要涉及雙方權(quán)利義務(wù)的明確、交易是否已獲授權(quán)的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及具體的分配規(guī)則。銀行與持卡人法律關(guān)系中,持卡人負(fù)有妥善保管義務(wù)與及時通知義務(wù),銀行則負(fù)有安全保障義務(wù)與謹(jǐn)慎審查義務(wù)。交易授權(quán)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)取消現(xiàn)行以正確密碼使用作為唯一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的做法,嘗試從多角度設(shè)置科學(xué)、合理的判斷依據(jù)。具體分配規(guī)則包括責(zé)任限額條款、銀行與持卡人的免責(zé)事由以及訴訟中的舉證責(zé)任分配與歸責(zé)原則的明確。
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D922.281

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 齊曉霞;論市場經(jīng)濟中的公平定位[J];山東行政學(xué)院山東省經(jīng)濟管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2002年03期

2 夏越新;論誠信與市場經(jīng)濟的健康發(fā)展[J];學(xué)習(xí)論壇;2003年06期

3 孫鵬;交易安全及其民商法保護(hù)論略[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;1995年05期

4 馮江菊;張道許;;淺談強迫交易罪的認(rèn)定——以唐文等強行乞討一案為例[J];法制與社會;2008年08期

5 柳劍平;股票透支交易行為中的若干法律問題[J];經(jīng)濟論壇;1994年21期

6 焦津洪;;對知情交易的法律管制的比較研究[J];國際商法論叢;1999年00期

7 魏淑君;論證券法上的短線交易制度[J];理論學(xué)刊;2003年05期

8 孟俊紅;;短線交易歸入權(quán)制度之命運——談對《證券法》第四十二條的修改[J];商場現(xiàn)代化;2006年33期

9 趙萬一;劉小玲;;對完善我國短線交易歸入制度的法律思考[J];法學(xué)論壇;2006年05期

10 胡振東;;《證券法》短線交易歸入權(quán)研究[J];中國商界(下半月);2009年10期

相關(guān)會議論文 前4條

1 李維安;李建標(biāo);;利益相關(guān)者治理與中國上市公司的企業(yè)信用[A];經(jīng)濟學(xué)（季刊）第3卷第2期（總第10期）[C];2004年

2 |!屒修;;寇斯}搊遊x的法[x意A];2011年（第九屆）“中國法經(jīng)濟學(xué)論壇”論文集[C];2011年

3 劉丹冰;;保護(hù)投資者利益與內(nèi)幕交易禁止——也談《證券法》的修改[A];中國商法年刊創(chuàng)刊號（2001）[C];2001年

4 蔣巖波;;關(guān)于內(nèi)幕交易認(rèn)定的幾個問題[A];全國外國法制史研究會學(xué)術(shù)叢書——20世紀(jì)外國經(jīng)濟法的前沿[C];2001年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 ;中國金融期貨交易所應(yīng)急交易廳使用指引[N];期貨日報;2010年

2 商報記者 蔣夢惟;投資者訴天津文交所“交易規(guī)則不公”[N];北京商報;2011年

3 Richard L.Muehlberg　劉杰 編譯;如何規(guī)避交易中常犯的錯誤[N];期貨日報;2014年

4 宋啟虎;哪些因素最重要[N];期貨日報;2003年

5 嘉實基金 董鵬飛;淺析如何防范交易對手的信用風(fēng)險[N];上海證券報;2008年

6 本報記者 魏琳;酒品消費與投資：本與末的權(quán)衡[N];華夏酒報;2013年

7 曾祥龍;24小時交易與交易所的發(fā)展[N];期貨日報;2004年

8 記者 周自進(jìn);黃金評估交易崗位資格培訓(xùn)納入上海市緊缺人才培訓(xùn)工程[N];中國黃金報;2008年

9 陳海生;二手車交易變法　舊江湖市場維新[N];中國經(jīng)營報;2004年

10 本報記者;個人單筆交易為20萬美元[N];雅安日報;2005年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 張雪艷;衡量國民經(jīng)濟交易成本方法研究[D];遼寧大學(xué);2008年

2 鄧學(xué)龍;委托驅(qū)動市場知情交易與策略行為研究[D];華中科技大學(xué);2010年

3 楊成福;賣權(quán)買權(quán)評價模式及履約價間動態(tài)平衡之研究[D];中南大學(xué);2006年

4 黃素心;中國證券市場內(nèi)幕交易的實時監(jiān)控、行為甄別與最優(yōu)監(jiān)管[D];華中科技大學(xué);2008年

5 顧永立;內(nèi)幕交易規(guī)制對公司價值作用研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2003年

6 王偉;我國證券市場內(nèi)幕交易：形成機制與經(jīng)濟后果研究[D];西南財經(jīng)大學(xué);2012年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 鹿靜;證券市場內(nèi)幕交易民事責(zé)任研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2015年

2 王曉東;我國證券內(nèi)幕交易法律規(guī)制研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2013年

3 劉雨霽;我國內(nèi)幕交易民事賠償制度研究[D];首都經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易大學(xué);2015年

4 劉潔婷;1939-1955年英國的經(jīng)濟管制與燃料黑市交易[D];陜西師范大學(xué);2015年

5 關(guān)放;證券市場內(nèi)幕交易的民事賠償問題探究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

6 姚鳳嬌;證券錯誤交易撤銷的法律問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

7 蔣嘉娜;內(nèi)幕交易行政處罰要素的實證分析[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

8 卜凡;控股股東關(guān)聯(lián)交易的規(guī)則研究[D];揚州大學(xué);2015年

9 賀國琪;蒙東礦業(yè)內(nèi)幕交易審計研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2016年

10 張麗穎;淺析證券法中的短線交易制度[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

，

本文編號：1954682