I was watched by the Internet police during the live broadcast of law popularization?

Chapter 152 To win the lawsuit, you must have enough evidence

Li Chen really didn't expect that these netizens' obsession with Zhang San was so deep.

I glanced at the time, and it was less than ten o'clock, so I could still talk about it.

"Since everyone wants to hear Zhang San's story, then I will tell you about this issue."

Li Chen intends to lengthen the case.

"Let's review the emotional dispute between Zhang San and the bank.

First of all, let's analyze the accident from the perspective of the bank.

On the day of Zhang San's deposit, the bank's banknote detector had an accident, causing the staff to misjudge that he had deposited 5 yuan.

It was not until the day of the payment that they discovered that the amount of money was wrong.

The bank's evidence is that under the surveillance equipment, the employees did not move money.

On Zhang San's side, there are also two refutation plans, and different refutation plans will bring different results.

The first is to give back to the bank in the same way. "

Speaking of which, Li Chen pushed his glasses and changed his tone of speaking: "Yes, the 7000 yuan is with me, but I will not return it to you, and I will not be responsible for leaving the cabinet. What you said Well!"

"Here, Zhang San admitted his actual deposit amount, and had a bad attitude when the bank asked for a refund, which is likely to constitute unjust enrichment.

Because the bank is not responsible for leaving the cabinet, it has no legal effect and is just a piece of paper.

In this case, Zhang San's behavior constituted a crime, and he was likely to be sentenced. "

"In the second case, Zhang Sanjue refused to admit it, and insisted that he saved 5 yuan. The law enforcement agency found 7000 yuan in his home, but he said it was the money he reserved."

Li Chen pushed his glasses: "This point is very important, you need to explain the legal source of the money, explain the source, and then prove that the money is indeed reserved.

So here, we assume that Zhang San has explained it clearly.

In this case, from Zhang San's perspective, his deposit is 5 yuan.

Because under the monitoring, the amount displayed by the money detector is 5 yuan.

As for the so-called broken, you have to produce evidence that it was broken at the time.

This is like the firecracker case I mentioned earlier.

The actual amount of Zhang San is unknown. He may or may not have deposited 5 yuan. The actual amount of his deposit has been verified by the banknote detector.

As for the so-called broken, it can only prove that the banknote detector is broken, but it cannot prove that Zhang San broke when he saved the money.

And if you can't prove Zhang San's crime, how can you convict him? "

Li Chen said with a smile on his face: "Before the trial court started, Zhang San turned back and sued the bank, asking them to compensate him for the loss of his reputation, mental compensation, and an apology."

"I have 5 yuan, but you falsely accused me of undersaving 7000 yuan. Now the whole community knows about it, saying that I have no conscience and have caused serious troubles to my life."

"A reasonable request should be accepted by the court."

While explaining his case, Li Chen was searching for related trials and judgments.

In the live broadcast room, netizens also talked about their own views:

"It's simply impossible, okay, you're suing the bank back, what are you kidding? (Shut up) It's the third brother, it's okay..."

"My cousin has encountered such a thing before. Because of the bank's own reasons, he entered two extra zeros, and was sentenced to a year in prison for concealing the truth."

"Ordinary people still fight with banks? Think about it."

"There is only the third brother, and in reality 100% loses the lawsuit."

"Whether you can win the lawsuit depends on whether you can prove your innocence."

Li Chen, who found the case, began to answer: "I will share with you a real case of a bank suing.

This is a real case from the Jiangsu Judicial Court Network:

The CS City People's Court recently handled a dispute over unjust enrichment arising from bank deposits.

On the morning of June 6 this year, Ms. Zhou went to a CS branch of a certain bank to handle the cash demand deposit business. On the counter, she handed a wad of cash to the counter teller of the bank. The denominations were put into the money counting machine to count the cash, but due to negligence, the teller mistakenly deposited 29 yuan as 15570 yuan into Ms. Zhou's account.After the sub-branch checked the deposits and found the above situation, it called Ms. Zhou to request the correction of the deposit amount.But the two sides insisted on their own opinions, and the sub-branch had no choice but to file a lawsuit, requesting the Changshu City People's Court to deal with it according to law.

During the trial, Ms. Zhou believed that her actual deposit on the day was 25570 yuan, which was also the result of repeated confirmation with the teller after checking with the money detector, and requested to dismiss the bank's claim.

After careful comparison of multiple video surveillance materials submitted by the bank, the judge thought that the evidence provided by the bank was sufficient to prove the fact that the bank teller mistakenly deposited 10000 yuan more for Ms. Zhou due to a mistake. It constitutes unjust enrichment, and therefore supports the bank's claim.At present, Ms. Zhou has fulfilled the judgment.

In this case, the case is not important, what is important is that it has a judge reminding at the end:
Article 985 of the "Chinese Civil Code" stipulates that if the beneficiary obtains improper benefits without legal basis, the person who suffers the loss has the right to request the beneficiary to return the obtained benefits.In real life, it is generally believed that bank counters post a notice of "no responsibility for leaving the cabinet" to restrain depositors. After completing the deposit and withdrawal business, even if they make mistakes, they should not regret it.

But in fact, the notice is a unilateral clause. If there is evidence to prove that the bank is at fault, the notice cannot relieve the bank's legal liability.Similarly, as in this case, if the bank has indeed deposited more money for the depositor due to negligence, even if the depositor moves out of the bank and "will not be responsible for leaving the cabinet", the depositor cannot challenge the legal provisions and should return the improper benefits.

Here is what the judge of the trial court said, and the case I told is a completely opposite concept.

Here, I am talking about the three conditions that need to be met for unjust enrichment:

1. One party benefits;

2. The other party suffers losses;

3. There is a causal relationship between the benefit of one party and the loss of the other party.

In this case, Ms. Zhou was the beneficiary, and the bank suffered a loss. Ms. Zhou's profit had a causal relationship with the bank, and she should return the profit, that is, the 1 yuan.

As for what everyone said about the bank winning 100% of the case, I would say that is impossible.

The reason why the lawsuit cannot be won is because the evidence on our side is not strong enough.

As you said, I took 3 yuan, but when I got home, I found that it was [-] yuan less.

You know that the bank gave you less, but there will be many unknown situations in this process, because it has a blank cycle, which is a journey to your home after you walk out of the bank and escape the monitoring.

Within the distance, no one knows what you have done.

You have to have evidence to prove that you did not do any operations during the blank period, and the bank should compensate your losses. If you have evidence and they still deny it, you can sue the bank that denied it.

In this case, you have enough evidence, it is impossible for the bank to win the case. "

(End of this chapter)