本文選題：偽銀行卡　切入點(diǎn)：舉證責(zé)任　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：隨著銀行卡交易的迅速發(fā)展,偽銀行卡交易糾紛也層出不窮。因?yàn)闆](méi)有明確的法律規(guī)定,目前的司法實(shí)務(wù)中法官的裁判尺度不一,判決情況各異。本文正是在這樣的背景下,從我國(guó)偽銀行卡交易案件的司法現(xiàn)狀出發(fā),對(duì)50份來(lái)自于不同法院的偽卡交易案件進(jìn)行了梳理,歸納出偽銀行卡交易糾紛中的爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn),并通過(guò)相關(guān)的分析研究給出相應(yīng)的判案路徑,以期為法院、持卡人以及銀行提供更有價(jià)值的實(shí)務(wù)參考。本論文主要分為四個(gè)部分:第一部分對(duì)偽銀行卡交易糾紛的司法現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行了梳理分析�？v觀我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中的案件審理情況,案件審理過(guò)程中的爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)集中在以下幾個(gè)方面:是否能夠適用先刑后民原則;偽銀行卡交易糾紛中的舉證責(zé)任分配問(wèn)題;當(dāng)事人之間的責(zé)任承擔(dān)。第二部分主要關(guān)注偽銀行卡交易糾紛中先刑后民原則的適用問(wèn)題。先是對(duì)我國(guó)偽銀行卡交易糾紛中先刑后民原則的適用現(xiàn)狀作了梳理分析,然后重點(diǎn)解析了先刑后民原則的適用條件。依據(jù)我國(guó)法律法規(guī)以及最高院司法解釋中確立的原則,要在案件中適用先刑后民原則需具備事實(shí)具有同一性的條件,即兩種法律關(guān)系是一種競(jìng)合關(guān)系,而非牽連關(guān)系。最后得出結(jié)論,偽銀行卡交易糾紛只是刑事、民事法律關(guān)系牽連案件,不屬于同一法律關(guān)系,不能適用先刑后民原則駁回起訴或中止審理。而且這類(lèi)案件在司法實(shí)踐中偵查難度頗大,如果等待刑事案件偵查完畢后再處理,不利于司法的公正和效率。第三部分探討了偽卡交易案件中舉證責(zé)任的分配問(wèn)題。偽銀行卡交易案件中,主要涉及證明卡片真?zhèn)渭懊艽a泄露誰(shuí)之過(guò)錯(cuò)兩個(gè)方面的舉證責(zé)任,而就現(xiàn)狀可以看出,我國(guó)各地法院在案件裁判過(guò)程中對(duì)當(dāng)事人雙方舉證責(zé)任的分配還存在較大的差異。根據(jù)我國(guó)民訴法的規(guī)定,一般情況下適用的舉證原則為“誰(shuí)主張、誰(shuí)舉證”原則;依據(jù)一些法律規(guī)定或一般常識(shí)和平時(shí)生活經(jīng)驗(yàn)法則能推定的適用“推定原則”;在沒(méi)有法律法規(guī)及相關(guān)司法解釋情況下,由法官在公平和誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則的基礎(chǔ)上適用“合理分配原則”。根據(jù)上述舉證責(zé)任分配原則,在真?zhèn)慰ń灰资聦?shí)的舉證方面,持卡人對(duì)銀行卡存在未丟失,卡內(nèi)資金丟失,銀行卡使用記錄、掛失記錄或報(bào)案證明,對(duì)密碼盡到正常人注意義務(wù)等事實(shí)負(fù)有舉證責(zé)任;銀行對(duì)交易環(huán)境安全,POS簽購(gòu)單,持卡人遲延掛失,存在道德風(fēng)險(xiǎn)等事實(shí)負(fù)有舉證責(zé)任。對(duì)于密碼泄露的舉證責(zé)任,根據(jù)誰(shuí)主張誰(shuí)舉證的原則,銀行應(yīng)對(duì)己方提出的持卡人對(duì)密碼外泄存在過(guò)錯(cuò)承擔(dān)舉證責(zé)任。有說(shuō)法認(rèn)為因密碼的私有性,適用該原則有失公平。但是無(wú)論從經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力上看還是從專(zhuān)業(yè)水平方面分析,銀行都顯然具有更優(yōu)的舉證能力。第四部分重點(diǎn)分析了當(dāng)事人之間的責(zé)任承擔(dān)問(wèn)題。對(duì)于偽銀行卡交易案件的處理,我國(guó)各地法院的裁判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不一,在持卡人和發(fā)卡行雙方的責(zé)任承擔(dān)比例上意見(jiàn)各異,其中判決銀行承擔(dān)主要責(zé)任的占多數(shù)。偽銀行卡交易糾紛中的法律關(guān)系往往比較復(fù)雜,銀行方通常會(huì)提出追加特約商戶(hù)或取款行為案件當(dāng)事人的要求。由于持卡人訴求發(fā)卡行承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任系基于兩者間的儲(chǔ)蓄存款合同關(guān)系,該類(lèi)案件的當(dāng)事人應(yīng)為儲(chǔ)蓄存款合同的當(dāng)事人,即持卡人和發(fā)卡行雙方,不需要追加取款行或特約商戶(hù)等第三方為當(dāng)事人。在偽銀行卡交易案件中,銀行承擔(dān)責(zé)任的義務(wù)來(lái)源主要有三個(gè)方面:一是基于法律規(guī)定銀行應(yīng)對(duì)儲(chǔ)戶(hù)存款履行的安全保障義務(wù),二是基于合同約定銀行應(yīng)盡的全面履行合同的義務(wù),三是基于誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則銀行應(yīng)承擔(dān)的合同附隨義務(wù)。無(wú)論是從損失產(chǎn)生的原因出發(fā)、還是從損失承擔(dān)的后果方面分析亦或是站在損失防控的角度而言,都應(yīng)由銀行對(duì)偽銀行卡交易帶來(lái)的損失承擔(dān)主要責(zé)任。而具體責(zé)任承擔(dān)范圍的確定還要看持卡人是否具有過(guò)錯(cuò)。對(duì)于偽銀行卡交易糾紛中相關(guān)格式條款的效力問(wèn)題,根據(jù)通常理解,免責(zé)條款的適用,必須具備一個(gè)前提,即持卡人從事取款消費(fèi)活動(dòng)使用的是真實(shí)的銀行卡,而糾紛中涉及的的偽銀行卡交易顯然不屬于正常的真卡消費(fèi)活動(dòng),明顯不應(yīng)適用該規(guī)則。持卡人在偽銀行卡交易案件中是不是應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)責(zé)任要看其是否具有過(guò)錯(cuò)。如果持卡人存在與第三人合謀進(jìn)行偽卡交易的情形,則應(yīng)承擔(dān)全部民事責(zé)任;如果持卡人存在不規(guī)范用卡行為足以造成密碼外泄的,一般需要對(duì)銀行卡內(nèi)資金損失承擔(dān)一半以上的責(zé)任。司法實(shí)務(wù)中的偽銀行卡交易依據(jù)當(dāng)事人雙方的過(guò)錯(cuò)程度可以分為三種情形:在銀行卡信息與密碼的外泄完全因銀行系統(tǒng)、設(shè)備存在安全隱患所致的情況下,發(fā)卡行需承擔(dān)全部責(zé)任;在銀行卡信息與密碼的泄露完全因持卡人自身原因所致的情況下,持卡人應(yīng)根據(jù)其過(guò)錯(cuò)程度承擔(dān)一半以上甚至全部的責(zé)任;在銀行卡信息與密碼的泄露與持卡人和發(fā)卡行兩方均有關(guān)系的情況下,則應(yīng)根據(jù)雙方的過(guò)錯(cuò)行為對(duì)損害發(fā)生及擴(kuò)大所起作用的大小來(lái)判斷,依據(jù)發(fā)卡行的過(guò)失程度,分別判決其承擔(dān)80%以上,70%以上以及50%以上的責(zé)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.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王振杰;被執(zhí)行人履行能力舉證責(zé)任的分擔(dān)[J];上海市政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2001年03期

2 葛玲;;對(duì)民事訴訟中舉證責(zé)任虛化的探討及反思[J];研究生法學(xué);2001年04期

3 溫雪斌;論舉證責(zé)任的不可轉(zhuǎn)換性[J];南京師大學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年01期

4 陸中俊,周雪艷;巨額財(cái)產(chǎn)來(lái)源不明罪舉證責(zé)任淺探[J];人民檢察;2002年02期

5 王克玉,洪堅(jiān);析醫(yī)患糾紛中的舉證責(zé)任[J];人民檢察;2002年06期

6 任律珍;關(guān)于火災(zāi)免責(zé)舉證責(zé)任的思考[J];上海海運(yùn)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年04期

7 蔣德海;舉證責(zé)任倒置是醫(yī)方舉證責(zé)任的復(fù)位[J];政治與法律;2002年04期

8 李維;試論舉證責(zé)任的分配[J];法學(xué)雜志;2002年01期

9 鄭利明;刑事舉證責(zé)任的理性思考[J];蘭州學(xué)刊;2002年05期

10 楊貝,劉紅;也談舉證責(zé)任的確定性[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年02期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 蘭海;;談舉證責(zé)任的倒置及轉(zhuǎn)移[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2002年

2 董曉娟;趙秀玲;;舉證責(zé)任與護(hù)士的證據(jù)意識(shí)[A];玉溪市第十一屆內(nèi)科學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集[C];2007年

3 陳少英;曹曉如;;稅務(wù)訴訟舉證責(zé)任研究[A];財(cái)稅法論叢（第10卷）[C];2009年

4 戴和平;;淺議購(gòu)房糾紛案件中消費(fèi)者舉證責(zé)任的倒置[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2002年

5 吳毅;;論法官對(duì)舉證責(zé)任自由裁量權(quán)的行使[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2004年

6 王志文;;論民事訴訟中舉證責(zé)任的倒置[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2002年

7 王德詩(shī);張金智;;環(huán)境污染糾紛處理過(guò)程中的證據(jù)及舉證責(zé)任的分配[A];水資源、水環(huán)境與水法制建設(shè)問(wèn)題研究——2003年中國(guó)環(huán)境資源法學(xué)研討會(huì)（年會(huì)）論文集（下冊(cè)）[C];2003年

8 梁梅;;論民事訴訟中舉證責(zé)任的倒置[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2002年

9 王廣仁;任戰(zhàn)江;;舉證責(zé)任倒置在民事訴訟中擴(kuò)大適用之我見(jiàn)[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2002年

10 馬東曉;;略論舉證責(zé)任的分配規(guī)則——以知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟為例[A];規(guī)劃·規(guī)范·規(guī)則——第六屆中國(guó)律師論壇優(yōu)秀論文集[C];2006年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 祁立民;消費(fèi)者購(gòu)假索賠舉證責(zé)任的承擔(dān)[N];民主與法制時(shí)報(bào);2002年

2 張毓華 楊宇軍 魏武;行訴中原告的舉證責(zé)任[N];人民法院報(bào);2002年

3 劉娜;欠條證據(jù)的舉證責(zé)任如何分配[N];深圳特區(qū)報(bào);2004年

4 程方偉;對(duì)申請(qǐng)執(zhí)行人舉證責(zé)任的思考[N];人民法院報(bào);2002年

5 劉良凱;談?wù)u謗罪的舉證責(zé)任[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

6 河口縣人民法院 邱云霞;淺議民事訴訟之舉證責(zé)任[N];紅河日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

7 周兵;該案應(yīng)當(dāng)由誰(shuí)承擔(dān)舉證責(zé)任[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2011年

8 陳學(xué)權(quán);刑事被告人舉證責(zé)任初探[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2001年

9 姜偉 何家弘 卞建林;舉證責(zé)任的轉(zhuǎn)移、倒置及免證[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2001年

10 天津市郵政局 陳時(shí);用儲(chǔ)蓄卡取款,舉證責(zé)任如何確認(rèn)?[N];人民郵電;2003年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 曾冠棋;舉證責(zé)任法理探討與實(shí)證評(píng)析[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2007年

2 呂利秋;《行政訴訟舉證責(zé)任》[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2000年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 萬(wàn)正禮;我國(guó)醫(yī)療糾紛舉證責(zé)任研究[D];上海交通大學(xué);2009年

2 張江艷;海運(yùn)貨損索賠中舉證責(zé)任問(wèn)題的研究[D];上海海事大學(xué);2004年

3 劉榮淵;舉證責(zé)任辨析[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2001年

4 劉士友;舉證責(zé)任制度的簡(jiǎn)要比較分析[D];中國(guó)人民大學(xué);2005年

5 孫鶴;海上貨物運(yùn)輸合同貨物索賠舉證責(zé)任研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2007年

6 徐慶斌;論舉證責(zé)任及其分配標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2004年

7 劉新萍;論民事訴訟中的舉證責(zé)任[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2004年

8 黃春英;程序性辯護(hù)舉證責(zé)任若干問(wèn)題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2007年

9 曹劍;民事訴訟中的舉證責(zé)任及其分配[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2007年

10 劉方騰;我國(guó)稅務(wù)訴訟舉證責(zé)任研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：1594993