尊敬的审判长：

浙江利群律师事务所接受李某某的委托，指派我们担任原告李某某诉被告中国邮政储蓄银行有限责任公司台州市前所营业所、中国邮政储蓄银行有限责任公司衡阳县支行储蓄合同纠纷一案的一审代理人。代理人经过调查取证结合法庭调查，现结合有关事实并依据相关法律法规之规定，发表以下代理意见，望法庭予以充分考虑并采纳：

一、本案不适用先刑后民原则，被告要求中止审理的主张依法不能成立。

首先， “先刑后民”是有其适用条件的，最高院《关于在审理纠纷案件中涉及经济犯罪嫌疑若干问题的规定》第十条规定：“人民法院在审理经济纠纷案件中，发现与本案有牵连，但与本案不是同一关系的经济犯罪嫌疑线索、材料，应将犯罪嫌疑线索、材料移送有关公安机关或检查机关查处，经济纠纷案件继续审理。”可见，只有在民事法律行为与犯罪行为涉及同一法律关系时，才适用先刑后民原则。而在本案中，原告请求银行支付卡内存款的依据是储蓄合同关系，这与犯罪嫌疑人通过犯罪手段盗取银行资金的行为不属于同一法律关系，本案作为储蓄合同纠纷应独立于犯罪案件进行审理。

其次，《最高人民法院关于银行储蓄卡密码被泄露导致存款被他人骗取引起的储蓄合同纠纷应否作为民事案件受理问题的批复》中明确规定：“他人伪造银行储蓄卡骗取存款人银行存款，存款人依其与银行订立的储蓄合同提起民事诉讼的，人民法院应当依法受理。”根据这一批复的精神以及其他相关的法律规定，本案也无须等到刑事案件审理完毕再进行审理。

最后，根据合同相对性原理，本案完全可以按储户与银行之间存在的储蓄合同关系直接提起民事诉讼。因为货币是种类物，当储户把资金存入银行，资金的所有权就发生了转移，故不法分子侵害的是银行的金融资金，而不是储户的个人财产，因此无论不法分子以什么形式作案，其窃取的只是银行的资产而非存款人的资产。第三人是否犯罪以及如何追究第三人责任的问题与本案的民事实体处理无关，本案民事部分的审理并不涉及刑事部分处理，被告不能以第三人的犯罪行为来免除自己的民事责任。

因此，被告要求中止审理的主张缺乏法律依据，本案应继续独立审理。

二、银行方面在办理开户、开通网银等业务时存在诸多过错，理应承担因此而给原告造成存款本息损失的赔偿责任。

本案中，被告作为储蓄合同中的资金保管方主要存在以下几个方面的过错：

1、未尽到安全保障义务。银行在其营业过程中应该设置必要的安全保障措施，进行必要的安全提示以保障储户的安全。根据《银行卡业务管理办法》第十三条的规定“商业银行开办银行卡业务应当具备安全、高效的计算机处理系统”。本案中，犯罪嫌疑人正是利用了邮政储蓄银行的网上银行系统的漏洞进行作案，邮政储蓄银行应当承担违反安全保障义务的责任。

2、在办理业务过程中，没有尽到向储户详细说明的义务。银行业务纷繁复杂，一般人在办理相关业务时也不免会产生困惑，更何况网上银行业务是这几年的新兴业务，需要大量的电脑知识和业务知识。一般人在刚接触网上银行业务时，都需要银行方面细心的说明指导。而原告在办理网上银行业务时，跑了椒江两岸三家邮储银行营业网点不下5次，没有一次得到他所需要的解释和帮助。从被告提交的《个人电子银行服务申请表》中也可以看出，原告申请开通的仅仅是自己手头银行卡的网上银行业务，而根据被告银行的内部规定，银行卡一签约就会自动和另一张银行卡“并卡”，对这样不合理的内部规定，原告不可能知晓，同时其他银行也都没有这样的类似做法。网上银行作为银行的新兴业务，银行应该就其功能和特性以及安全风险向每一个来办理该项业务的储户作出详细的说明。但是本案中，邮储银行显然没有尽到该项义务，导致原告普通的开通网银行为变成了所谓的自动“并卡”，给犯罪嫌疑人制造了作案的机会。

3、未尽到审查核实义务，工作草率未能识别出犯罪嫌疑人使用的明显伪造的身份证，违反了国家关于“金融实名制”的规定。

根据国家“金融实名制”的有关规定，银行需审查核实身份证件，并联网对比身份证上的照片等信息，完全一致时才能为储户办理业务。同时被告银行的《中国邮政储蓄银行储蓄业务制度》第六十七条也明确规定：“联网核查公民身份信息时，邮政储蓄机构通过登录中国人民银行信息转接系统，访问公安部全国公民身份信息系统，对客户提供的个人居民身份证所记载的姓名、公民身份证号码、照片以及签发机关的真实性进行核查。”而从第二被告提供的证据可以轻易比对出，犯罪嫌疑人使用的伪造身份证上的照片与原告本人、及原告真实身份证上的照片均存在明显差别，如果银行方面的严格按照各项规定核查对比照片的话，犯罪嫌疑人是根本没有作案的机会的。因此，代理人认为，第二被告没有尽到法定的审查核实义务，是导致了本案纠纷发生的最根本原因，其应当对本案承担最主要的责任。

4、未能及时地提供挂失服务。根据《银行卡业务管理办法》第五十二条第五款的规定：“发卡银行应当向持卡人提供银行卡挂失服务，应当设立２４小时挂失服务电话，提供电话和书面两种挂失方式……”，提供24小时电话挂失服务是银行的法定义务。但原告在7月2日19:31分至20：35分这一个小时之内共拨打了10次95580热线电话寻求帮助要求挂失，被告银行却始终没有向原告提供该项服务。被告辩称原告打进热线电话的时候，卡内资金已经全部被转走了，已经无法补救了。代理人认为，提供24小时电话挂失服务是银行的法定义务，该项义务不以储户打进电话过晚或账户资金已经被转走而消灭。况且，从原告收到的银行通知短信和通话记录都可以看出来，原告在第一时间就拨打了热线电话，已经尽了最大的努力保护自己的账户安全，遗憾的是在本案中，邮储银行并没有尽到其保护储户资金安全的义务。

三、原告已经尽到了一般人的注意义务, 在使用银行卡过程中没有过错，其要求银行支付款项的请求应当予以支持。

原告在办理了银行卡之后，一直谨慎使用并小心保管银行卡和密码，从未将银行卡外借或者向他人泄露银行卡密码，已经尽到了一般人、普通人的注意义务。原告为了账户资金安全，甚至还开通了银行的短信提醒这一收费服务，可见原告极为重视银行卡的资金安全。7月2号晚上7点29分，原告在收到第一条银行的短信提醒后，第一时间就跟被告银行的服务热线联系寻求帮助，并马上报警。这些都可以充分表明，如论是在日常使用还是在对突发事件的处理上，原告在使用银行卡的过程中没有过错，已经完全尽到了一般人的注意义务。

最高人民法院在《关于天津市邮政局与焦长年存单纠纷一案中如何分配举证责任问题的函复》中明确，此类案件原告的举证责任在于：证明储蓄合同关系的存在、证明存款的数目、取款卡没有丢失，原告已经完成了举证责任。而被告所有证据都是在举证期限之外提交的，《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第三十四条明确规定：“当事人应当在举证期限内向人民法院提交证据材料，当事人在举证期限内不提交的，视为放弃举证权利。”因此，其提交的证据依法不能为法庭所采信，况且被告提交这些证据也不能证明原告在使用银行卡过程中存在任何的过错，被告理应承担举证不能的后果。

综上意见，被告在办理业务过程中存在诸多过错，原告在使用银行卡的过程中已经尽到了一般人的注意义务，被告理应向原告支付199981元及相关利息，请求人民法院支持原告的诉讼请求。

代理人：浙江利群律师事务所律师

  朱美聪      阮涛涛

二0一一年十月十四日

Dear Chief Justice:

Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm accepted the entrustment of Mr. Li and appointed us as the first instance agent in the case of the plaintiff Mr. Li suing the defendant Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. Taizhou Qiansuo Business Office and Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. Hengyang County Sub branch for the dispute over the deposit contract. After investigation and evidence collection, combined with court investigation, the agent hereby expresses the following opinion based on relevant facts and in accordance with relevant laws and regulations. We hope that the court will fully consider and adopt it:

1. The principle of sentencing before the people is not applicable to this case, and the defendant's claim to suspend the trial cannot be established in accordance with the law.

Firstly, there are conditions for the application of 'punishment before the people', Article 10 of the Supreme Court's "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning Suspicions of Economic Crimes in the Trial of Disputes" stipulates: "When the people's court discovers economic crime clues and materials that are related to this case but not in the same relationship as this case, they shall transfer the criminal suspect clues and materials to the relevant public security organs or inspection organs for investigation and punishment, and the economic dispute case shall continue to be tried, Only when civil legal acts and criminal acts involve the same legal relationship, the principle of punishment before the people applies. In this case, the plaintiff's request for deposit in the bank card is based on the deposit contract relationship, which is not the same legal relationship with the suspect's behavior of stealing bank funds by criminal means. As a deposit contract dispute, this case should be heard independently of the criminal case.

Secondly, The Reply of the Supreme People's Court on the Acceptance of Disputes over Savings Contracts Caused by the Leakage of Bank Savings Card Passwords and the Fraudulent Withdrawal of Deposits by Others as Civil Cases "clearly stipulates:" If another person forges a bank savings card to defraud a depositor of bank deposits, and the depositor files a civil lawsuit based on the savings contract concluded between them and the bank, the people's court shall accept it in accordance with the law According to the spirit of this reply and other relevant legal provisions, this case does not need to wait until the criminal case is heard before proceeding with the trial.

Finally, according to the principle of Privity of contract, the case can be directly filed for civil action according to the deposit contract relationship between the depositor and the bank. Because currency is a type of thing, when depositors deposit their funds in a bank, the ownership of the funds is transferred. Therefore, criminals infringe on the bank's financial funds, not the depositor's personal property. Therefore, regardless of the form of crime committed by criminals, they only steal the bank's assets rather than the depositor's assets. The issue of whether a third party has committed a crime and how to hold the third party accountable is not related to the civil substantive handling of this case. The trial of the civil part of this case does not involve the handling of the criminal part, and the defendant cannot exempt themselves from civil liability based on the criminal behavior of the third party.

Therefore, the defendant's claim to suspend the trial lacks legal basis, and this case should continue to be tried independently.

2. The bank has many mistakes in handling account opening and opening online banking services, and should bear the compensation responsibility for the plaintiff's loss of deposit principal and interest caused by this.

In this case, the defendant, as the custodian of funds in the savings contract, mainly committed the following faults:

(1) Failure to fulfill safety obligations. Banks should establish necessary security measures and provide necessary security reminders to ensure the safety of depositors during their business operations. According to Article 13 of the "Management Measures for Bank Card Business", "Commercial banks should have a secure and efficient computer processing system when conducting bank card business. In this case, the suspect took advantage of the loopholes in the online banking system of Postal Savings Bank to commit the crime, and Postal Savings Bank should bear the responsibility for violating the security obligations.

(2) In the process of handling business, the obligation to provide detailed explanations to depositors was not fulfilled. The banking business is complex and complex, and most people are inevitably confused when handling related businesses. Moreover, online banking is an emerging business in recent years that requires a lot of computer and business knowledge. When most people first come into contact with online banking business, they need careful instructions and guidance from the bank. The plaintiff visited the three postal savings bank branches on both sides of the Jiaojiang River no less than 5 times when handling online banking business, and did not receive the explanation and assistance he needed once. From the "Personal Electronic Banking Service Application Form" submitted by the defendant, it can also be seen that the plaintiff only applied for the online banking business of their own bank card. According to the internal regulations of the defendant's bank, once the bank card is signed, it will automatically "merge" with another bank card. The plaintiff cannot be aware of such unreasonable internal regulations, and other banks do not have such similar practices. As an emerging business of banks, online banking should provide detailed explanations on its functions, characteristics, and security risks to every depositor who handles this business. However, in this case, the Postal Savings Bank apparently failed to fulfill this obligation, which led to the plaintiff's ordinary opening of online banking into the so-called automatic "card merging", creating opportunities for the suspect to commit crimes.

(3) The duty of examination and verification was not fulfilled, and the work was hasty and failed to identify the obviously forged ID card used by the suspect, which violated the national regulations on "financial real name system".

According to the relevant regulations of the national "financial real name system", banks need to review and verify their identity documents, and compare the photos and other information on their identity cards online. Only when they are completely consistent can they handle business for depositors. At the same time, Article 67 of the Postal Savings Bank of China Savings Business System of the respondent bank also clearly stipulates that "when checking citizen identity information online, postal savings institutions check the authenticity of the names, citizen identity card numbers, photos and issuing authorities recorded in the individual resident identity cards provided by customers by logging into the People's Bank of China Information Transfer System and visiting the National Citizenship Identity Information System of the Ministry of Public Security." From the evidence provided by the second defendant, it can be easily compared that the photos on the forged ID card used by the suspect are obviously different from the photos on the plaintiff and the plaintiff's real ID card. If the bank checks and compares the photos in strict accordance with various regulations, the suspect has no chance to commit a crime at all. Therefore, the agent believes that the second defendant's failure to fulfill the statutory obligation of review and verification is the most fundamental cause of the dispute in this case, and they should bear the primary responsibility for this case.

(4) Failure to provide timely loss reporting services. According to Article 52, Paragraph 5 of the "Management Measures for Bank Card Business", "issuing banks shall provide cardholders with bank card loss reporting services, and shall establish a 24-hour loss reporting service hotline, providing both telephone and written loss reporting methods..." It is the legal obligation of banks to provide 24-hour telephone loss reporting services. But the plaintiff called the 95580 hotline 10 times from 19:31 to 20:35 on July 2 for assistance and requested to report the loss, but the defendant's bank did not provide this service to the plaintiff. The defendant argued that when the plaintiff called the hotline, all the funds in the card had been transferred and could no longer be remedied. The agent believes that providing 24-hour telephone loss reporting service is a legal obligation of the bank, and this obligation shall not be extinguished by the depositor calling too late or the account funds having been transferred. Moreover, from the bank notification SMS and call records received by the plaintiff, it can be seen that the plaintiff immediately called the hotline and made every effort to protect the security of their account. Unfortunately, in this case, the Postal Savings Bank did not fulfill its obligation to protect the security of depositors' funds.

3. The plaintiff has fulfilled the duty of care of ordinary people and made no mistake in using the bank card. Their request for payment from the bank should be supported.

After obtaining the bank card, the plaintiff has been cautious in using and keeping the bank card and password. They have never lent the bank card or leaked the bank card password to others, and have fulfilled the duty of care of ordinary people. The plaintiff even opened a bank's SMS reminder service to ensure the security of their account funds, indicating that they attach great importance to the security of bank card funds. At 7:29 pm on July 2nd, after receiving the first SMS reminder from the bank, the plaintiff immediately contacted the defendant's bank's service hotline for assistance and immediately reported to the police. These can fully demonstrate that whether in daily use or in handling emergencies, the plaintiff did not make any mistakes in using the bank card and has fully fulfilled the duty of care of ordinary people.

In the Letter on How to Allocate the Burden of Proof in the Dispute between Tianjin Post office and Jiao Changnian's Deposit Receipt, the Supreme People's Court clearly stated that the plaintiff's burden of proof in such cases was to prove the existence of the deposit contract relationship, the number of deposits, and the withdrawal card was not lost, and the plaintiff had completed the burden of proof. And all evidence submitted by the defendant is outside the time limit for providing evidence. Article 34 of the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Civil Litigation Evidence" clearly stipulates that "the parties shall submit evidence materials to the people's court within the time limit for providing evidence. If the parties fail to submit evidence within the time limit, they shall be deemed to have waived their right to provide evidence. Therefore, the evidence submitted by them cannot be accepted by the court according to law, Moreover, the submission of these evidence by the defendant cannot prove any fault of the plaintiff in using the bank card, and the defendant should bear the consequences of not being able to provide evidence.

In summary, the defendant made many mistakes in the process of handling business. The plaintiff had already fulfilled the duty of care of ordinary people in using bank cards. The defendant should have paid the plaintiff 199981 yuan and related interest, and requested the people's court to support the plaintiff's lawsuit request.

Agent: Lawyer from Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm

Zhu Meicong, Ruan Taotao

October 14th, 2011