Li Chen really didn't expect that these netizens would be so obsessed with Zhang San.

Glancing at the time, the time was less than ten o'clock, and I could still talk about it again.

"Since everyone wants to hear Zhang San's story, then I will tell you about this issue."

Li Chen intends to lengthen the case.

"Let's re-sort out the emotional dispute between Zhang San and the bank.

First, let's analyze the accident from the bank's point of view.

On the day Zhang San made his deposit, there was an accident at the bank's money detector, which caused the staff to misjudge him for depositing 50,000 yuan.

It wasn't until the day they paid the money that they realized that the money was wrong.

The bank's evidence is that the employees did not move their money under the monitoring equipment.

On Zhang San's side, there are also two rebuttal schemes, and different rebuttal schemes will bring different results.

The first is to give back to the bank in the same way. ”

Speaking of this, Li Chen pushed his glasses and changed his tone of voice: "That's right, the 7,000 yuan is here with Lao Tzu, but Lao Tzu just won't return it to you, and he won't be responsible for leaving the cabinet, what did you say!" ”

Here, Zhang San admitted the actual amount of his deposit, and his bad attitude when the bank asked for a refund was likely to constitute unjust enrichment.

Because the bank is not responsible for the exit from the counter, it has no legal effect, it is just a piece of paper.

In this case, Zhang San's behavior constitutes a crime and is likely to be sentenced. ”

"In the second case, Zhang Sanjue didn't admit it, and insisted that he had saved 50,000 yuan, and the law enforcement department found 7,000 yuan in his home, but he said that it was money reserved for himself."

Li Chen pushed his glasses: "This point is very important, you need to explain the legal source of this money, explain the source, then prove that this money is indeed reserved."

So here, let's assume that Zhang San has already explained clearly.

In this case, from Zhang San's point of view, his deposit is 50,000 yuan.

Because under the monitoring, the amount displayed by the money detector is 50,000 yuan.

As for the so-called broken, you have to show evidence that it was broken at the time.

It's like the case of firecrackers I talked about earlier.

Zhang San's actual amount is unknown, he may or may not have saved 50,000 yuan, to his actual deposit amount, under the verification of the money detector, the conclusion has been reached.

As for the so-called broken, it can only prove that the money detector is broken, and it cannot be proved that Zhang San was broken when he saved money.

And if Zhang San's crime cannot be proven, how can he be convicted? ”

Li Chen smiled: "Before the trial court opened, Zhang San sued the bank again, demanding that they compensate for their reputation loss plus moral compensation, and apologize. ”

"Lao Tzu is obviously 50,000 yuan, but you falsely accused me of saving 7,000 yuan less, and now the whole community knows about it, saying that I have no conscience, which has caused serious trouble to my life."

"The court should accept a reasonable request."

Li Chen explained his case while searching for relevant trial verdicts.

In the live broadcast room, netizens also talked about their views:

"It's simply impossible, okay, and sue the bank backhanded, what's the joke? (Shut up) It's the third brother, that's fine..."

"My cousin has encountered such a thing before, because of the bank's own reasons, he made two more zeros, and finally was sentenced to a year for covering up."

"Ordinary people still fight with banks? Think about it. ”

"There is only the third brother, and he loses the lawsuit 100% in reality."

"Whether you can win the lawsuit or not depends on whether you can prove your innocence."

Li Chen, who searched for the case, began to answer: "I will share with you a real case of a bank suing.

This is a real case from the Sujiang Trial Court Network:

The CS Municipal People's Court recently handled a case of unjust enrichment disputes arising from bank deposits.

On the morning of June 29 this year, Ms. Zhou went to a branch of a bank CS to handle cash demand deposit business, and at the counter, she handed a wad of cash to the teller at the bank's counter, and the teller took the cash handed in by Ms. Zhou and immediately put it into the banknote counter in denomination to count the cash, but due to negligence, the teller mistakenly deposited 15,570 yuan into Ms. Zhou's account as 25,570 yuan. After taking stock of the deposit and discovering the above situation, the sub-branch called Ms. Zhou to request the correction of the deposit amount. However, the two sides insisted on their own words, and the sub-branch had no choice but to file a lawsuit and request the Changshu Municipal People's Court to deal with it in accordance with the law.

During the trial, Ms. Zhou believed that her actual deposit that day was 25,570 yuan, which was also the result of the teller repeatedly confirming with her after checking it with a money detector, and requested that the bank's claim be dismissed.

After carefully comparing the multiple video surveillance materials submitted by the bank, the presiding judge held that the evidence provided by the bank was sufficient to prove the fact that the bank teller mistakenly deposited 10,000 yuan for Ms. Zhou due to mistakes, and that Ms. Zhou's refusal to return it had constituted unjust enrichment, so he supported the bank's claim. At present, Ms. Zhou has fulfilled the judgment.

In this case, the case is not important, what matters is that it has a judge at the end of the reminder:

Article 985 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if the gainer obtains an improper benefit without a legal basis, the person who suffers the loss has the right to request the gainer to return the gainer. In real life, it is generally believed that bank counters are posted with notices that "no responsibility is not responsible for leaving the counter" to restrain depositors, and even if they make mistakes after handling deposit and withdrawal business, they should not regret it.

However, in fact, the notice is a unilateral clause, and if there is evidence to prove that the bank is at fault, the notice cannot relieve the bank of its legal liability. Similarly, as in the case of this case, if the bank has indeed deposited more money for the depositor due to negligence, even if the depositor moves out of the "counter is not responsible", it will not be able to resist the provisions of the law and should return the improper benefits.

Here are the words of the judges of the court, and the case I am talking about is a completely opposite idea.

Here, I am talking about the three conditions that need to be met for unjust enrichment:

1. One party receives benefits;

2. Losses suffered by other parties;

3. There is a causal relationship between the benefits received by one party and the losses suffered by the other party.

In this case, Ms. Zhou was the profiteer, and the bank suffered losses, and Ms. Zhou's profits had a causal relationship with the bank, and the part of the profits should be returned, that is, the 10,000 yuan.

As for the words that people say that the banks win 100% of the cases, I would say that it is impossible.

And the reason why the lawsuit can't be won is because the evidence on our side is not strong enough.

As you said, I took 30,000 yuan, and when I got home, I found that 2,000 were missing.

You know it's the bank that gives you less, but there are a lot of unknowns that happen along the way, because it has a blank cycle, which is the journey you get out of the bank and get out of the surveillance to get home.

No one knows what you've done within the road.

You have to have evidence to prove that you didn't do anything during the blank period, and the bank should compensate you for your losses, and if you have evidence that they still want to deny, you can sue the bank that denies.

In this case, if you have enough evidence, it is impossible for the bank to win the case. ”

(End of chapter)