[馬來西亞] 信用卡被盜用5年官司‧要卡主還款‧銀行敗訴

hotcornet

（柔佛‧新山）信用卡被人在吉隆坡安邦和檳城盜用，銀行要卡主負責繳付被提領的款額，經5年對簿公堂後，推事庭判銀行敗訴並須付堂費。
% p1 t1 h7 D; D) m! Q公仔箱論壇
4 k( t- ^! N$ X- S5.39.217.76卡主是現年41歲的蔡慧珠（譯音），來自新山，她是業務經理。本案訴方是花旗銀行。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb3 T: B7 H/ ]! f6 i
. I& `. i( Q9 u9 e0 |" o% q
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。" B) |6 D  j+ R# s- N
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb' m0 q/ L$ N- V3 Z9 p7 @: Y2 k
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。" C" F! D3 y  P9 H7 K  c  o" X8 E' s' J; Y
# b8 K" j$ {  Q- d# u0 b1 @4 T
花旗銀行是在2003年在吉隆坡推事庭，要求法庭判令辯方繳還上述期間的提款額，另加利息、律師費和堂費等合共1萬3648令吉40仙。
! E* u# y7 I2 b  b5.39.217.765 ?/ ]7 o* E/ ~' E5 b9 U) T
本案後來移下新山推事庭聆審，推事拉茜達在週四（12月31日）下判時指出，辯方已盡了卡主的責任，包括通知銀行這盜提事件，向警方報案，以及向國家銀行投訴。同時，本案在安邦盜提案的錄像顯示有第三者在提款機前取錢。
# i1 p( w( ~& Y3 Q1 m/ ]5 t) itvb now,tvbnow,bttvb4 W; ?8 g6 h0 U0 i3 b, B4 m1 g
推事指出，辯方在這事件中有依循信用卡合約中的條文行事，即採取合理的步驟以通知銀行有關信用卡被盜用的事。辯方也有帶雇主的代表上庭證明她事發期間有在巴西古當上班。
9 O) L. A* F( Q+ p# ~3 I
3 Y2 l6 m' x3 G/ o) F# {2 X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。

weisiang80

As a banker myself, I think the judgement is not fair to the Bank.5 O3 L* k0 f$ \- p4 G8 \
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.公仔箱論壇! T8 o4 b5 S1 z" c/ P( @+ J
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.

cheongpeng

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.

weisiang80

Cheongpeng, I do agree with your statement and also understand where you are coming from (which is the customer point of view).
  R" ?0 v+ n0 |8 S# C5 w3 d! r5.39.217.76But sometime, a small punishment should also be charge to the ocnsumer for their negligence in order to alert them from repeating the mistake again.
& T/ n& D" ?0 [: B+ g公仔箱論壇And 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.
: I+ i% Z/ T6 c4 RBut bare in mind that, such clauses will be exploit by those irresponsible credit card users. Thus, it also a double edge swords.
: S9 ^* }* W6 z' @公仔箱論壇