In Leshan, Sichuan, a man went to a bank ATM to withdraw 15 RMB with a face value of 100 yuan, and found that 6 of them were practice coupons. After the man called the police, accompanied by the police, he saw the ** at the time of withdrawal. As a result, the surveillance confirmed that there was no problem with the money withdrawn by the man from the ATM, so it is suspected that his money may have been dropped, so what is going on?
*: Star**, Red Star News).
Mr. Fei received an invitation from a friend and planned to attend a wedding next month, considering that cash would be used to attend the wedding, so when passing by the bank, Mr. Fei thought about getting some cash in advance for the time to use.
At that time, Mr. Fei withdrew the money in two installments, with a total withdrawal of 1,500 yuan.
One of them is 500 yuan and the other is 1,000 yuan. The 15 tickets are all 100 yuan in denomination, and the withdrawal time is November 30.
After taking out the 1,500 yuan, Mr. Fei put all the money at home.
On December 24, Mr. Fei gave four of them to his sister to use, and he took three of them to the market to buy things. However, when Mr. Fei was reminded by the merchant, he found that there were two exercise coupons that were very similar to RMB.
Later, my sister confirmed that the 4 tickets in my sister's hand were also practice tickets. But the strange thing is that the remaining 8 cards in the house are real money.
In other words, 6 of the 15 tickets taken out were practice coupons, and Mr. Fei suspected that he had received the practice coupons when he withdrew the money, so he immediately called the police for help.
But Mr. Fei, accompanied by the police, saw the complete withdrawal ** presented by the bank, but found that there was no problem with the 15 RMB with a face value of 100 yuan from the ATM, and Mr. Fei also recognized this.
Afterwards, including Mr. Fei himself, he also suspected that he was transferred, but when and where he was transferred, Mr. Fei did not know, and he did not plan to investigate further because there were no clues.
Some netizens said that fortunately, the bank has monitoring, and it is also a clear monitoring**, otherwise the bank is really not clear. However, some netizens retorted that after more than 20 days, the burden of proof in this case lies with Mr. Fei;Some netizens believe that Mr. Fei should dig deeper and find out who did it
So from a legal point of view, how to evaluate this matter?
First of all, at the beginning, the parties were in a civil dispute, and Mr. Fei, as the party who made the claim first, should provide evidence to prove his claim.
Article 67, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims.
In other words, after Mr. Fei completes the burden of proof, the burden of proof shifts to the bank, that is, the bank has the obligation to provide evidence to refute at this time.
Article 90 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that a party shall provide evidence to prove the facts on which its own claims are based or on which it refutes the claims of the other party, unless otherwise provided by law. Where a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove its factual assertion before a judgment is rendered, the party who bears the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.
In other words, when the bank can prove through evidence that the cash they provided to Mr. Fei is not problematic, Mr. Fei can only continue to provide evidence, otherwise he will have to bear all the consequences of not being able to provide evidence.
Secondly, the problem is now clear, the money is the problem after leaving the bank. That is, it is transferred. So is this fraud or theft?
The similarity between fraud and theft is that the perpetrator has the intent to take possession. That is, the perpetrator subjectively wanted to keep the six pieces of real money for himself.
The biggest difference between the two is whether Mr. Fei knew about the transfer of property, that is, whether it was secretly stolen, or whether he took the initiative to deliver it when he was misunderstood.
Specifically, if the perpetrator deliberately secretly exchanged 6 pieces of real money with practice coupons in order to cover up the facts, then it will be found to be theft.
Specifically in this case, Mr. Fei said that no one had touched the money before it was discovered, so it was not delivered, so this case was theft.
Finally, Article 49 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law stipulates that anyone who steals public or private property shall be detained for 5-10 days and may be fined up to 500 yuanwhere the circumstances are more serious, they are to be detained for 10-15 days and may be concurrently fined up to 1,000 RMB.
In other words, since the value of the six renminbi is 600 yuan, it does not meet the standard of "relatively large amount" that should be investigated for criminal responsibility. Therefore, if Mr. Fei decides to investigate further, the perpetrator will be subject to administrative punishment.
There is an opinion that if Mr. Fei did put the money directly at home after withdrawing it, then it is very likely that an acquaintance committed the crime. What do you think about this?
Follow @Juan's opinion!Let's look at life and learn legal knowledge from practical cases!