Mr. Fei is going to attend a wedding, so he needs to prepare cash as a gift money. He went to the bank ATM machine in advance to withdraw money, and took out a total of 15 RMB with a face value of 100 yuan. However, when using the money, he was surprised to find that 6 of them were practice tickets. This sparked suspicions among Mr. Fei, who believed that the banknotes for the practice vouchers might have been mistakenly taken by him when withdrawing the money. So, he immediately called the police and received assistance from the police. The police and Mr. Fei worked together to monitor the withdrawal, and confirmed that there was no problem with the 15 RMB with a face value of 100 yuan that Mr. Fei took out. Mr. Fei also admitted this. Although Mr. Fei suspected that his money had been transferred, he decided not to investigate the matter further because there were no clues.
After Mr. Fei got the 15 banknotes, he gave 4 of them to his sister to use, and he took 3 of them to the market for shopping. However, during the transaction, the merchant reminded Mr. Fei that two of them were practice coupons, which made him realize the seriousness of the problem. After checking with my sister, I found that the 4 banknotes in my sister's hand were also practice coupons. But the strange thing is that the remaining 8 banknotes in Mr. Fei's house are all real money. Mr. Fei began to suspect that he had received a practice voucher when he withdrew the money, which led him to call the police and ask the police for help. However, when he saw the full withdrawal** offered by the bank, Mr. Fei found that there was no problem with the 15 RMB denominations of 100 yuan issued by the ATM. He accepted the bank's certificate and recognized it.
At the legal level, Mr. Fei, as the plaintiff, needs to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim. According to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, the plaintiff has the burden of providing evidence to prove his claim. When the bank proves through evidence that there is no problem with the cash provided to Mr. Fei, Mr. Fei needs to continue to provide evidence to support his claim, otherwise he will bear the consequences of insufficient evidence.
In fact, the problem was after Mr. Fei left the bank. This indicates that the money is likely to have been exchanged by someone else at a certain time and place. Is this a fraud or a theft?What fraud and theft have in common is that the perpetrator has the intent to take possession of the money. The difference lies in the process of transferring the money, whether the perpetrator stole it in secret or Mr. Fei voluntarily delivered it out of a misunderstanding. If the perpetrator deliberately used the practice voucher to secretly exchange Mr. Fei's money for the purpose of covering up the facts, then it can be found to be theft. In this case, Mr. Fei did not deliver the money to anyone, so it was theft.
According to the Public Security Administration Punishment Law, perpetrators of theft of public or private property will face 5-10 days of detention and a fine of up to 500 yuan. However, in this case, the total value of the six exercise coupons was only 600 yuan, which could not be determined as a "large amount", so the perpetrator could not be held criminally responsible. If Mr. Fei decides to pursue the matter, then the perpetrator will face administrative penalties.
Some people believe that if Mr. Fei left the money directly at home after withdrawing the money, then it was likely to be done by an acquaintance. Because only someone who is familiar with Mr. Fei's whereabouts and address can complete such a precise operation. However, there is not enough evidence to prove the correctness of this speculation.
In this case, Mr. Fei found out that he had obtained a practice voucher after withdrawing the money, which aroused his suspicions and concerns. Through investigation and communication, we learned that Mr. Fei's behavior at that time was reasonable, and the bank ATM machine was normal when withdrawing money. Then, after **monitoring**, it was confirmed that there was no problem with the banknotes taken out. This also illustrates the effectiveness of the banking system and monitoring, which plays an important and necessary role in the monitoring system.
However, the truth of this case has not yet been revealed. We still can't be sure where and where the banknotes were replaced. Although Mr. Fei did not pursue the matter further, the occurrence of the case has aroused people's attention and thinking about security issues. We should be more aware of our security, especially when dealing with large amounts of cash. At the same time, we need to have trust in the bank's monitoring and security systems to keep our assets safe.
To sum up, although we have not been able to find a definite answer to the problem encountered by Mr. Fei, we should learn from it. At the same time, the analysis and judgment of such incidents through the legal level can help us better understand the nature of the matter and the related responsibilities. Therefore, when faced with similar issues, we should objectively evaluate the evidence and resolve the dispute through legal means. Only in this way can we protect our own rights and interests and safeguard social fairness and justice.