As we all know, there is a sign on the bank counter, which clearly says, "You are not responsible for counting money in person and leaving the counter."
Suppose A withdraws 8000 yuan from the bank counter. Because the staff at the bank counter were careless, they overpaid10,000 yuan. A didn't find it then, so she put it in her pocket and went home. In the afternoon, the bank counter took stock of the day's income and expenditure settlement, and found that the counter gave A an extra thousand yuan. At this time, the bank staff would call A to send the money back. If A doesn't dare to return this 1000 yuan to the bank, then once the bank calls the police, the bank will report it responsibly.
It's no use talking about which lawyer you want A to find to file a lawsuit at this time. A is doomed to lose and may go to jail.
Let's change seats again. Suppose A withdraws 8000 yuan from the bank counter, and the bank counter staff accidentally underpays A 1000 yuan, and A walks out of the bank without counting the money at that time. A walked out of the bank for less than three minutes, then took out his money and counted it, and found that he was missing 1000 yuan. A went to the bank counter to argue, sorry, this 1000 yuan is hard to come by.
Of course, A is not convinced. Will A have a good chance of winning a lawsuit with the bank?
(In principle, bank surveillance videos can only be viewed with the permission of judicial organs. )
Of course, this does not mean discrediting the bank. In some ways, the status of individuals and banks is not equal. When a lawyer accepts a lawsuit, he must have an estimate of the odds. Knowing that you can't win a lawsuit will definitely ruin the lawyer's own image.
Bank loan collection is often outsourced and entrusted to a professional collection team, and it is within the scope permitted by law. In other words, banks don't have sex with lawyers.
Of course, there is no lawyer who refuses to accept the litigation business of the bank. It's just time-consuming and laborious, and then he can't make money. So why bother a lawyer?
If the client is a bank case, then lawyers are generally willing to take it.
But if the other party is a bank case, lawyers do take fewer cases.
Because this kind of case is usually a loan case, the evidence and facts of the loan case are generally clear, and the borrower is bound to lose the case, because it is natural to pay back the debt, and the bank loan procedures are complete and there will be no loopholes. Lawyers rarely take such cases because it is difficult to play a very good role.
I haven't heard that lawyers don't take such cases unless there are several circumstances.
First, according to the existing law, the case will be lost in advance, but the parties must win the case, and the lawyer will not accept the result of losing the case;
Second, the parties do not meet the conditions of legal aid, do not apply for legal aid, but hope that lawyers can provide free services. Lawyers take law as their profession. Although we don't do some free consultation or public welfare legal activities, we generally don't accept free services. Paying is the basic obligation of the client, and the lawyer has to live.
Third, the parties have obviously violated the law and still do not change after the lawyer gives a risk warning. Lawyers avoid legal risks, which is not only against morality, but also against the law. The risk is too great and the cost is too high.
It's just that bank cases are all in batches, bankers will cut costs, and lawyers will not do them if they can't make money or the time cost is not worth it.
Few lawyers are afraid to take cases. As we all know, it is a job for lawyers to collect money and protect the interests of their clients under the legal framework, and few people will take it out on them. This is especially true for institutions such as banks.
Lawyers don't take cases far from the bank, in fact, because the bank case is difficult to win. It can be seen from your question that you think the bank cheated you and intend to sue the bank. Such a case is hard to win?
1, there is not much legal space.
As a financial institution, banks have a professional legal team and a professional team of lawyers and consultants. From contract design to implementation, it has been audited by many departments and staff. It is difficult to find out the legal fault of the bank.
2. Insufficient evidence
For the general public, legal awareness is not enough. They often don't read the contents of the contract carefully when signing it. They just signed at the place where they signed it and pressed their handprints as required. Finally, when they went to pay back the money, they found that the contents of the contract were inconsistent with what the salesman said, but you signed the contract yourself and the handprint was your own. They said that the salesman lied to you at that time, but without evidence, you won't get support in court.
3. The status of the two sides is not equal.
Although civil litigation holds that both parties have equal status, in fact, the court will also consider some factors outside the case, social influence and the difference between the two parties' status. You and the bank are obviously not on the same level.
Because of these factors, when your case is tried in court, it is often difficult to get support and almost lose. This kind of case will only smash the signboard for lawyers, which is of little significance. If the lawsuit is lost and the client thinks it is the lawyer's fault, it will not be worth the loss if he goes to the judicial bureau to complain.
There are many cases in which banks demand arrears. For example, handling a case within a time limit, executing it within a time limit, and calculating the lawyer's fee according to the recovered amount.
It's easy to say. I have read a bank consultant agency contract. There is one: even if the lawyer takes over the lawsuit, if the debtor aims to repay the bank, he will not pay the lawyer's fee in this case. Although the original intention is good, but if you want to urge employees not to come back, entrust a lawyer to go to court and take the initiative to repay, should you pay the lawyer's fee?
In many cases, the actual borrower is not the borrower agreed in the loan contract, but someone else, such as a guarantor or others. Such cases can easily become criminal cases.
So many people find the bank case troublesome. Don't want to do it
There are also many tricks for banks to deceive people. The crude oil treasure incident is a living example, and deposits have become insurance.
Questioners may ask about cases in which lawyers refused to sue banks.
First of all, there is no question of daring, only the question of appropriateness.
The reasons for not answering may be:
The plaintiff's demands are too high, and the evidence can't meet the plaintiff's expectations.
(2) Similar to crude oil treasure, there are extra-case factors.
The law of the jungle society has arrived. It is no longer news that banks cheat money. I really look forward to the arrival of digital currency, the central bank. Now gold shops, jewelry stores, banks, stock markets and futures markets are full of swindlers. I really don't know where to put the money. My money is moldy.
Take the case of bank fraud as an example. Most of the deceived people can't find the parties. Or a man without money. In order to avoid failing to meet the legal fees.
There are also cases of bank losses [an epiphany]. Some bank loan guarantors didn't sign it themselves, and there were no videos. After judicial appraisal, the bank lost the case.