If you were asked to file a lawsuit, how come you were not found guilty?

Chapter 182 Wrong Account
“The same behavior of taking advantage of the malfunction of an ATM machine means that if the deposit is 1, then the over-withdrawal should be made at the 11th withdrawal, and if the deposit is 2, then the over-withdrawal should be made at the 21st withdrawal.

When the bank card balance is sufficient, I think the person who withdraws the money cannot be judged guilty just because there is a problem with the ATM and the deduction does not match the actual withdrawal amount, right? "

Ren Zhen looked at the prosecutor's box. The person under the greatest pressure now should be Tan Haizhou.

"However, the defendant deliberately withdrew money more than 170 times while knowing that his bank card balance was insufficient, and took money that did not belong to him. No matter what calculation method was adopted, it did not affect the fact of theft."

Tan Haizhou knew that the problem pointed out by Ren Zhen did exist. After a brief hesitation, he chose to target Xu Jiaxian's behavior:

“Even when withdrawing money from an ATM, it is not simply the actor who issues instructions, but a series of operations within the machine system.

However, the balance on Xu Jiaxian's card was only more than 100 yuan. After withdrawing money for the first time, he realized that according to normal accounting, there should be no money on his card, and the extra money would have to be returned to the bank.

But Xu Jiaxian not only did not stop, but continued to withdraw money up to hundreds of times. His subjective viciousness was obvious. His behavior of taking money from the ATM should undoubtedly constitute a crime. "

At the end of the day, Tan Haizhou himself was actually not sure whether Xu Jiaxian's behavior was theft, so in the end he simply said that Xu Jiaxian constituted a crime. As for what crime it was, you judges should think carefully about it!

Not only him, but the three judges on the trial bench were also very confused at this time.

To constitute the crime of theft, the most important thing is to have the identification of secret theft.

According to the ideas of the previous two trials and the opinions of several experts, Xu Jiaxian's behavior blocked the bank's control of the 10,000+ money and established a new control relationship.

Although his behavior was completed under the supervision of the bank, his method took advantage of errors in the bank system and should be classified as secret theft.

Originally, the three of them had discussed together several times before the trial and reached a consensus on the determination of the secret theft.

Even at the time, I was still sighing, experts are experts, and their ideas for solving problems are so smooth!

Who knows that the secret theft that everyone now thinks is perfect has been found by Ren Zhen.

The premise of this determination is that Xu Jiaxian's behavior was to take money.

But Ren Zhen now proposes that the act of withdrawing money from an ATM is a withdrawal rather than a taking, which directly rules out the possibility of secret theft.

However, this view is most likely correct!
But what Tan Haizhou said makes sense. Even if Xu Jiaxian's behavior was to withdraw money, but you took advantage of the loopholes in the ATM to withdraw money that did not belong to you, there is definitely something wrong with this behavior.

It's not theft, but it's definitely something wrong. How should this behavior be characterized?
Zhang Lixia has already started to have a headache.

Why is it that every time I see Ren Zhen, the court hearing always doesn't go smoothly?
"Please don't confuse the public prosecutor. Even if Xu Jiaxian did take advantage of the machine's loopholes and withdraw money that did not belong to him from the ATM, his behavior was not what the prosecutor said."

Regardless of whether Tan Haizhou's choice of words was intentional or unintentional, Ren Zhen couldn't possibly let him get away with it:

"I have just said that withdrawing money from an ATM is essentially a repayment by the bank to the customer. Taking it is a unilateral action. If the ATM is just a piggy bank-like thing, then the Xu family will take it first Taking away more than 17 yuan should indeed be considered theft.

However, ATMs belong to financial institutions, and withdrawing money from the machine is equivalent to withdrawing money at the counter. At this time, it is obviously not something that the Xu family can do unilaterally. "

The words "take" and "withdraw" are the same, but the legal meanings contained in them are completely different.

"But Xu Jiaxian's card originally only had more than 100 yuan. It was impossible for him to withdraw more than two banknotes. Even if his behavior was not taking, it should be."

As he spoke, Tan Haizhou's voice gradually became quieter.

So what should it be?

"Under normal circumstances, Xu Jiaxian could only withdraw one banknote, but when the ATM malfunctioned, he withdrew more money. There was a problem with the settlement process of the creditor's rights and debts between the bank and him.

In this case, a system problem at the ATM resulted in two errors: one was that the withdrawal was incorrectly approved, and the other was that the withdrawal could not be recorded truthfully. "

Ren Zhen was responding to Tan Haizhou, and even explaining to the judge that when it came to another professional field, the judge might not be able to understand it directly, just like he had to learn from Wei Yuanxu before.

“The wrong recording of a 1000 yuan withdrawal as 1 yuan is an accounting error, which needs to be corrected by the bank in accordance with the corresponding accounting regulations.

In other words, the 1 yuan withdrawal record has no legal basis in law, because no withdrawal of 1 yuan occurred. How can it be judged that the Xu family has withdrawn every time just because the machine deducted 1 yuan and actually withdrew 1000 yuan? What about the theft of 999 yuan?

According to normal procedures, the 1 yuan withdrawal should be corrected based on the actual withdrawal situation, that is, it should be corrected to a withdrawal of 1000 yuan. Finally, the unified accounting should be carried out, and the conclusion was drawn that Xu Jiaxian's account was overdrafted by 173822.74.

This overdraft balance can truly reflect the fact that the withdrawal exceeds the actual deposit, and the bank can require the Xu family to return the overdraft amount first. "

clap clap clap!
Duan Yiping couldn't help but quietly applauded: "Although he didn't raise any objections to the evidence during the cross-examination, the problems with the evidence were gradually exposed during the court debate. Lawyer Ren can do this. I won't say there is a problem, save the time. The judge thought I was talking nonsense and I let you find the problem by yourself, so you should take this to heart, right?"

"The evidence is secondary. The most important thing is the interpretation of the Xu family's behavior."

Kong Xiaotian also fought not guilty before, but in a completely different direction from Ren Zhen, and he can better understand how hard-won the current situation is:

"Having said so much, in the final analysis, it is still the difference between withdrawal and taking. Once the point of withdrawal is discovered, the direction of the wind completely changes.

No matter how the prosecutor explains, it is impossible to deny that the bank cooperated with Xu Jiaxian's behavior. As long as the bank is involved, it will be deemed as theft again, unless the court can give an explanation that none of us expected. "

Having said this, Duan Yiping and Kong Xiaotian then thought, if it is not theft, what crime should they be convicted of?
It is unlikely that he will not be convicted. After all, the fact is that the Xu family took the money first and then refused to communicate with the bank.

In this way, it seems to be similar to the conclusion of Duan Yiping's first trial. Could it be embezzlement?

(End of this chapter)