/ U: H8 x9 o8 W: K& i4 K公仔箱論壇答辯人蔡慧珠（譯音）在2003年5月27日接到花旗銀行信用卡的戶頭結單後，發現在當年4月29日至5月1日之間，她的用信卡戶頭被不明人士在吉隆坡安邦和檳城盜提7次，合共1萬1000令吉。她後來通知花旗銀行並向警方投報，也向國家銀行投訴。 6 Z. x3 M( v o ?( s公仔箱論壇 / o% g- S5 h6 b6 [. E' Q5.39.217.76她的辯護律師馬利亞班說，辯方也出示僱主信件，以證明她在上述期間在巴西古當工作，所以她是不可能到安邦和檳城的提款機去提款的。公仔箱論壇+ I& A0 p4 I, b' ?: g: x
! v& z+ X9 y r4 U6 z( c S她因此判起訴人敗訴，並須付堂費。訴方的代表律師是蘇那克利斯南。作者: weisiang80 時間: 2010-1-1 06:01 PM
As a banker myself, I think the judgement is not fair to the Bank.5.39.217.76" w" F: o& h/ A& k
Although we know that customer does not has the intention to let a 3rd party using her cards, but it is also a customer resposible to take a good care on his/her own cards. 8 H1 x4 G6 h. j( d- sTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。Each credit card customers should be alert on their own credit card security and not solely depend on the Bank to monitor for them. They must know, Bank do not have sufficient staff to monitor all their customers.作者: cheongpeng 時間: 2010-1-2 12:30 PM
I disagreed with weisiang. I think the judgement is fair because despite the customer already proved that she is a victim. Why victim has to pay? Well done the judge. Make it a lesson to Citibank.作者: weisiang80 時間: 2010-1-2 06:50 PM
Cheongpeng, I do agree with your statement and also understand where you are coming from (which is the customer point of view).公仔箱論壇: a; `* i7 o9 s* h) C
But sometime, a small punishment should also be charge to the ocnsumer for their negligence in order to alert them from repeating the mistake again. + W2 k' @( J! n( t5.39.217.76And yes, I also agree that the full sum amount should not be charge to the customer (which is against my profession point of view), maybe a minimum of RM 250 which recently hightlighted by BNM should good enough. % z9 c) r, g" h7 n公仔箱論壇But bare in mind that, such clauses will be exploit by those irresponsible credit card users. Thus, it also a double edge swords. : |2 { E3 l$ z' @+ O
