First, let's review the outline of this story. The story takes place in Leshan, Sichuan, where a man, Mr. Fei, took out 15 RMB with a face value of 100 yuan when withdrawing money from a bank ATM. However, it was only a few days later that he found out that six of them were practice vouchers instead of genuine money. After he called the police, the police accompanied him to the surveillance video when withdrawing money, confirming that there was no problem with the money he withdrew from the ATM. Mr. Fei agreed, but he didn't know when or where he was transferred. Although there are no clues, he does not intend to delve into the matter. Some people believe that the bank has clear surveillance footage to resolve the dispute, while others believe that Mr. Fei should be responsible for proving his claim. According to the Civil Procedure Law and judicial interpretations, when Mr. Fei completes the burden of proof, the burden of proof shifts to the bank, that is, the bank has the responsibility to provide evidence to refute Mr. Fei's claim. Now the problem is clear, the money was transferred after leaving the bank. It's a question of theft or fraud. Both theft and fraud involve the intent of unlawful possession, but the biggest difference between the two is whether or not the property is knowingly transferred. If the perpetrator steals Mr. Fei's genuine money in order to cover up the facts, then it is theft. Based on the available circumstances and evidence, this case should be found to be a theft. According to the Law on Public Security Administration Penalties, theft of public or private property is subject to administrative penalties, such as 5-10 days of detention and fines. Because the total value of the transferred currency is only 600 yuan, it does not meet the standard of "relatively large amount" that should be criminally prosecuted. Finally, there is an opinion that if Mr. Fei's money is kept directly at home, it is likely that it was done by acquaintances. So, what do you think about this?
Behind this story, we can't help but think about some questions. First of all, how secure is the bank ATM?As a self-service cash withdrawal device often used in people's daily life, the security of ATMs has always attracted attention. However, in this case, the banknotes that Mr. Fei took out from the ATM were found with practice vouchers. This raises concerns about the security of ATMs. Although the bank confirmed the authenticity of the surveillance footage in its investigation, there are concerns about the safety of ATM withdrawals. Banks, as financial institutions, have a responsibility to ensure the safety of customer funds. They should strengthen the monitoring and inspection of ATMs to avoid similar incidents from happening again. Secondly, there are a lot of comments and controversies on the web about this incident. One party argued that Mr. Fei did not discover the transfer in time, and that he was responsibleThe other side argues that banks should conduct regular inspections of ATMs because ATMs are a service provided by banks and banks should be responsible for their security. This issue has sparked a discussion about the allocation of responsibilities. In this regard, we must follow the principle of allocation of responsibilities established by law. Mr. Fei, as the party making the claim, has the burden of providing evidence to prove his claim. The bank has the burden of providing evidence to refute Mr. Fei's claims. Through the norms and constraints of the law, we can better resolve disputes in similar cases. Again, the story raises questions about theft and scams. Based on the available evidence, we conclude that this is a case of theft. However, even if there is evidence to support Mr. Fei's claim, a certain chain of evidence is required to hold the perpetrator criminally responsible. In this case, since the value of the six genuine banknotes was not high enough to constitute the "large amount" standard, the perpetrator may be subject to administrative punishment rather than criminal prosecution. This has also sparked reflection and discussion on the law. We need clear provisions and clear definitions in the law in order to better safeguard fairness and justice. Finally, an interesting point was made that Mr. Fei's money may have been made by an acquaintance. This idea raises questions about the trust and safety of those around us. In modern society, we deal with all kinds of people, but it is inevitable that we will encounter some dishonest people. Whether it's family, friends, or business partners, we all need to be vigilant and take appropriate measures to ensure our property and safety. Once a similar incident occurs, we should promptly report to the police and assist the relevant departments in their investigation. Of course, in this case, we can also learn from such experiences to improve our security awareness and prevention capabilities. Overall, this story makes us think about many issues and make a certain reflection on the safety of society and the application of the law. Through this case, we can better understand and recognize the operation of the law, enhance the awareness of self-protection, and promote the harmonious development of society.