Analysis Of The Cases About The Dispute Over Savings Deposit Contract

The development of Internet economy,the payment method is updated,and the new fast payment method is more and more popular with users.However,the phenomenon of theft of savings deposits keeps emerging,fake card transactions,password leakage,without authorized,and other cases occur from time to time,many cases also involve third-party payment institutions.The savings deposit contract dispute,look be like simple case,but due to the relevant laws and regulations lag behind,there are differences in the determination of the parties’ responsibility and the distribution of proof burden in judicial practice,resulting in the emergence of different judgments of the same case,when it comes to the unauthorized transactions of third-party payment institutions,the identification of liability also presents difficulties.Based on more than 40 judgment cases related to deposit contract disputes since2018,it is not difficult to find that how to determine the nature of deposit theft cases,how to deal with criminal civil cross,whether the parties to the deposit contract perform their due obligations,whether the bank is responsible for the losses of depositors and the determination of the proportion of liability all constitute the focus of the disputes.Based on the analysis of the focus of the dispute,the ownership problem of the nature of the deposit contract can be defined as a debt-creditor relationship,so that the ownership of the deposit should be owned by the bank,and the depositor only has the right to claim the debt.When the cross between the criminal and the civil occurs,the case can be continued after the criminal and citizen cases resulted from the exclusion of the criminal suspect of the depositor.At this time,the focus of the court’s review is the performance of the obligations of the depositor and the bank.Based on the nature of the deposit contract,the depositor has the obligation to properly keep the account information,seal,password and other information.Besides the similar confidentiality obligation,the bank also has the obligation of security and prudence.When depositors and banks violate their contractual obligations,they are liable for breach of contract.In practice,the court has determined that the liability of the bank belongs to the liability for breach of contract,including the liability for refusing to perform and incomplete performance,and the court has also directly skipped the basis of liability determination,onlyjudging the proportion of liability to be borne by both parties based on the size of their fault.The proportion of proof burden is often affected by the distribution of proof burden,the court has not been able to reach a uniform standard.Based on the consideration of balancing the interests of both sides,it is of better practical value to apply the principle of strict liability to determine the distribution of proof burden,and to consider the specific quantification ratio.For the determination of the liability of third-party payment institutions,the depositor can be held liable for breach of contract and tort according to the actual situation,so as to safeguard his own rights and interests.