Comment On The Jin Sues The Bank For Copy Of Bank Cards

In recent years, the case that card holders sue the financial institutions toundertake fund steals in bank card has become the hot and difficult issue of civil andcommercial trials, which has given rise to a wide discussion among all groups ofsociety. In these bank card copy cases, there’s a savings contract between banks andcark holders. But there aren’t any provisions that stipulate their obligations as well asascription principles in the contract. Under this circumstance, judicial discretionmatters a lot with regard to how to ascertain the obligation of both parties. In thefollowing case, because of the bank’s breach of the contract and no-fault of the carkholder, the bank is ordered to accept all responsibility by the court. Though the rangeof the bank’s obligation is vague, the card holder can’t prove it’s no-fault, and theascription principle isn’t definite, the court hereby awarded such a verdict——it isthought to be abuse of the right of discretion and the focal point of both parties. Inaddition, as it regards to bank card crimes, this case involves both civil and criminallegal relationships, whether it needs to suspend the hearing with the application of theprinciple of criminal procedure prior to civil procedure, is another argumentativeissue. However, it isn’t supposed to apply the principle to all cases concerning bothcivil and criminal liability. When it comes to the application of the principle, there aretwo conditions. First, same parties, it means the parties of the civil dispute aredefinitely the same parties of the criminal dispute. Second, same legal fact, whichgives rise to both civil legal relationship and criminal legal relationship. This casedoesn’t meet the above conditions. The reason why the court didn’t apply theprinciple of Criminal Procedure Prior to Civil Procedure is the respect of judicialauthority, which contributes a lot to judicial fairness.