The parties to the story are the Beijing Guanyuan Sub-branch of the Bank of Communications and the old man Li who lives in Haidian, Beijing. Li was born in 1952 and is 69 years old. The loan occurred when she was 6 1 year old.
On August 30th, 20 12, Bank of Communications, as the lender, and Li, as the borrower, signed the Personal Revolving Loan Contract, and agreed on the following terms: Revolving loan means that the borrower applies for loans from the lender in stages according to the contract, but the loan balance does not exceed the amount approved by the lender; The bank amount is 6,543,800 yuan+0.5 million yuan; Loans are used for consumption; The credit period is from September 4th, 20 12 to September 4th, 20 15; The loan interest rate is a floating interest rate, and the benchmark interest rate of China People's Bank for the corresponding term and grade will rise by 5% on each lending day. The specific interest rate is subject to the records in the debt service table. Since the actual loan issuance date, the date of each full year is the loan interest rate adjustment date; The repayment method is to pay interest in installments and repay the principal at one time; Repay the principal on the maturity date of the loan, and pay interest on a monthly basis, and the interest payment date is the corresponding date of the loan date; If the borrower fails to repay the loan principal and pay interest in full and on time, Bank of Communications has the right to charge interest according to the default interest rate of overdue loans, and to charge compound interest for unpaid interest; The default interest rate of overdue loans is 50% higher than the interest rate agreed in the contract. At the end of the aforementioned contract, the "Applicable to the Borrower's Spouse" has the signature of "Zeng".
On August 30th, 20 12, the property mortgaged by Li was registered, and the Bank of Communications obtained the certificate of other rights.
During the trial of this case, Li claimed that the handwriting of "Zeng" in the above two contracts was not my signature.
After signing the Personal Revolving Loan Contract and the Maximum Mortgage Contract, Li signed the borrower's signature on the Application for Withdrawal and the Confirmation of Entrusted Transfer of Personal Comprehensive Credit Business. During the trial of this case, Li said that when he signed the above two materials, the materials were all blank, and the information in the materials, such as the payee's name, payee's account number, payee's bank name, loan amount, etc., were filled in by the staff of Bank of Communications after Li signed.
Upon examination by the court of first instance, the payee stated in the Application for Withdrawal and the Confirmation Letter for Entrusted Transfer of Personal Comprehensive Credit Business is Liu Shijiang, and the account number is, which was opened in Beijing Guangwai Sub-branch of Huaxia Bank, with an amount of 6,543,800 yuan+0.5 million yuan.
During the trial of this case, Bank of Communications also submitted the Beijing Furniture Sales Contract and the Supplementary Agreement, in which it was stated that Liu Shijiang, the person in charge of the company, was entrusted by Beijing Freehand Space Furniture Management Center to collect the balance of Li's furniture payment of 6,543,800 yuan, and stated that Liu Shijiang's bank account was consistent with the withdrawal application. The Bank of Communications proved that Li agreed to transfer the loan to Liu Shijiang's account. In the trial of case no. 19780 At the beginning of the Western Republic of China (20 13), Li applied for the verification of whether the handwriting of "Li" in the Supplementary Agreement was written by himself. Beijing Fayuan Court Scientific Evidence Appraisal Center issued a judicial appraisal opinion, and the appraisal conclusion was that the handwriting of "Li" in the supplementary agreement was not written by the same person as the sample handwriting provided by Li. During the trial of this case, Bank of Communications recognized the authenticity of the appraisal opinion.
On September 4th, 20 12, Bank of Communications issued a loan of RMB 6.5438+0.5 million to Li Bank's account and immediately transferred RMB 6.5438+0.5 million to Liu Shijiang's account.
On June 20 1 4, 2007 17, the China Banking Regulatory Commission's Beijing Supervision Bureau issued a Letter on Reply to Li and Zeng's second complaint, which read as follows: "1.During the pre-loan investigation, the account manager of Bank of Communications Guanyuan Sub-branch did not meet Zeng personally. His behavior violated Article 2 of the Operating Rules for Personal Loan Interview, Home Visit and Face-to-face Signing of Bank of Communications Beijing Branch (Bank of Communications Beijing Office Letter (2010) No.226). Personal loan interview in these Provisions refers to the personal loan business department's face-to-face verification of the borrower's identity in the due diligence stage before lending. And personally witnessed the provisions of the borrower's signing of the loan application, interview record, credit inquiry authorization and other information texts on the spot, as well as the provisions of Article 17 of the Measures for the Administration of Personal Loans (CBRC Order No.20 20 10/0 No.2) that lenders should establish and strictly implement the loan interview system. 2. Li's occupation and income certificate was forged, and all the words were filled in by Qiu Chen, which violated the provisions of Articles 11 and 12 of the Measures for the Administration of Personal Loans (CBRC Order No.2 20 10). 3. The copy of the private equity investment certificate of Li Investment Tianjin Investment Center (Limited Partnership) received by Qiu Chen is inconsistent with the original, which is a forgery and violates Article 13 of the Measures for the Administration of Personal Loans (Order No.2 of CBRC 20 10). 4. The application form for personal credit line of Bank of Communications requires that the following information be filled in by the borrower himself. In practice, Li filled in his name, ID number, home address and other information, and all other information was filled in by Qiu Chen, which violated the internal control system of Bank of Communications. ..... eight. The letter reflected that the credit file of Bank of Communications lacked the receipt of Li's purchase of mahogany furniture. After self-examination, the Guanyuan Sub-branch of Bank of Communications said that after the loan was issued, Li provided a receipt, but it has been lost at present, which is caused by the lax keeping of the credit files of the sub-branch. 9. According to the above problems found in the verification, our bureau has asked Beijing Branch of Bank of Communications to seriously investigate the responsibilities of Qiu Chen and other relevant personnel and punish them. If an employee is found to have violated the law, he will be required to change his profession and be transferred to the judicial department in time. "
2065438+On September 30th, 2007, China Banking Regulatory Commission Beijing Supervision Bureau issued the Letter of Reply on Petition, which read as follows: "1...(2) You reported Qiu Chen's forged loan materials. Upon verification, the personal time deposit certificate of 65,438+065,438+0 yuan opened by Li in Minsheng Bank on February 8, 1965 was forged ... (V) Upon verification, the description of Li's personal income, private equity fund and time deposit certificate in the Approval Form for Personal Revolving Credit Line of Bank of Communications Beijing Branch was a false pre-lending investigation. 2. The above-mentioned acts in Item (2) and (5) of Article 1 violate the provisions of Article 13 of the Measures for the Administration of Personal Loans (Order No.2 of CBRC No.20 20 10) that "after accepting the borrower's loan application, the lender shall perform due diligence, investigate and verify the authenticity, accuracy and completeness of the personal loan application, and form an investigation and evaluation opinion". In view of the problems existing in Yu and its sub-branches such as not strictly implementing the interview system and not strictly performing due diligence duties, our bureau has suspended the personal consumption loan business of this sub-branch for half a year, and ordered Beijing Branch of Bank of Communications to hold the relevant responsible persons accountable for the violations found in Li's revolving loan. 2065438+In February 2005, Beijing Branch of Bank of Communications gave him a transfer from his original post, and informed criticism recorded a punishment. "
In addition, it is found out that Liu Shijiang, the payee indicated in the Confirmation of Withdrawal Application and Entrusted Transfer of Personal Comprehensive Credit Business, is the father of Liu Yanan, the loan intermediary mentioned by Yu in the transcript of the public security organ.
In addition, during the trial of the first instance of this case, Bank of Communications indicated that the account manager who sued the loan in this case was Yu, who left Bank of Communications on 20 15.
The court of first instance held that during the trial of this case, Li recognized the signing of the Personal Revolving Loan Contract and the Maximum Mortgage Contract, but claimed that the payee's name, payee's account number, payee's bank name, loan amount and other information specified in the above materials were not filled in when signing the Application for Withdrawal of Personal Comprehensive Credit Business and the Confirmation of Entrusted Transfer, and the relevant information was filled in after being signed by Bank of Communications employee Li. Accordingly, the focus of the dispute in this case is whether Bank of Communications and Li have reached an agreement on the allocation path of 6.5438+0.5 million yuan loan.
After cross-examination by the court of first instance, the evidence submitted by Bank of Communications to prove that Li should pay Liu Shijiang includes the Application for Withdrawal, the Confirmation of Entrustment Transfer of Personal Comprehensive Credit Business and the Supplementary Agreement, among which the Supplementary Agreement was not signed by Li after judicial authentication. With regard to the withdrawal application and the confirmation of entrusted transfer of personal comprehensive credit business, it was confirmed in the conversation with the pre-trial brigade of Xicheng Branch of Beijing Public Security Bureau on 20 14/October 23 that "the confirmation of entrusted transfer of personal comprehensive credit business is only signed in the space below, and the rest are blank. The withdrawal application is only signed by the borrower. That is to say, when Li signed the above two materials, the information such as payee's name, payee's account number, payee's bank name and loan amount in the materials were all blank and not filled in. In his talk, Yu also confirmed that "except for Li's signature, the confirmation letter of entrusted transfer of personal comprehensive credit business was filled out by colleagues in the loan department of our bank. In addition to the signatures of Li and Zeng, the "Application for Withdrawal" also includes the signatures of our bankers. "The Bank of Communications did not admit the authenticity of Yu's conversation in the public security organs, but did not submit corresponding evidence to prove it. The court of first instance held that Yu's aforementioned conversation took place on 20 14 10, Li complained to Bank of Communications and Beijing Banking Regulatory Bureau earlier than 20 14 10, and Yu's resignation time was 20 15. If Bank of Communications thinks that the statement of its former employee Yu is untrue and damages the legitimacy of Bank of Communications, it has the ability and time to talk with Yu on 20 14 and 20 15 to confirm the facts, or requires Yu to testify in court during the trial of this case. Bank of Communications cannot submit evidence to prove that its former employees' conversations in public security organs are flawed and should bear the consequences of false evidence. Based on the existing evidence submitted by Bank of Communications, it is difficult for the court of first instance to conclude that Li made the intention to authorize Bank of Communications to remit the loan of RMB 6,543,800+0.5 million to Liu Shijiang's account, that is, Bank of Communications failed to prove that it had reached an agreement with Li on the distribution path of RMB 6,543,800+0.5 million. Therefore, the court of first instance found that the contractual obligation of Bank of Communications to issue loans to Li had not been fulfilled, and Li did not need to repay the loan principal and interest to Bank of Communications.
During the trial of this case, the court of first instance studied the Reply of Li and Zeng and the Reply of Beijing Supervision Bureau of China Banking Regulatory Commission on Letters and Visits paragraph by paragraph. Both documents pointed out that there were a lot of irregularities in the handling of loan obligations in this case, such as Qiu Chen's failure to sign in person, collateral's failure to sign, Bank of Communications's failure to carefully examine and determine that Li's professional and income certificate, Minsheng Bank's time deposit certificate and other customer qualification documents were forged, so Qiu Chen filled in the important contents of the contract text on his behalf and kept it by Bank of Communications. Yu's conversation in the public security organs showed that he trusted Liu Yanan, the loan agent, too much. He not only handed over some loan materials signed by Li to Liu Yanan for safekeeping, but also failed to carefully examine the customer qualification certification materials submitted by Liu Yanan. Even in the process of loan processing, I only met Li once. Li's contact information retained in the loan information was provided by Liu Yanan to Yu, who neglected to verify its authenticity, and during the loan approval process, the Risk Verification Department of Bank of Communications failed to find any defects in the loan business. In addition, Liu Shijiang, the ultimate beneficiary of the loan in this case, is Liu Yanan's father, so he should keep necessary vigilance. Now Li Can can't control and change the path of loan issuance. For the emergence of this result, the risk verification department of Yuhe Bank of Communications has a major fault. During the trial of this case, Bank of Communications failed to submit any photos, videos or audio recordings related to the contract signed with Li. Considering the above factors comprehensively, the court of first instance found that there was a major fault in handling the loan business in this case. Bank of Communications not only has poor management and education for its own employees, but also has poor work in the loan approval and risk verification departments. The Minutes of the National Conference on Civil and Commercial Trials of Courts pointed out that the legitimate rights and interests of financial consumers should be protected according to law, the business behavior of financial service providers should be standardized, and an open, fair and just market environment and order should be promoted. As a professional financial institution, Bank of Communications should strictly abide by the regulatory documents issued by the CBRC and other regulatory authorities during the exhibition industry and strictly restrain the behavior of its employees. At present, the internal control mechanism of Bank of Communications is invalid, and it should bear the corresponding adverse consequences.
To sum up, according to Articles 6 and 60 of the Contract Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), all the claims of Beijing Guanyuan Sub-branch of Bank of Communications were rejected.
Bank of Communications refused to accept the judgment and appealed. The court of second instance held that the judgment of first instance found that the facts were clear and the applicable law was correct and should be upheld. According to the first paragraph of Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the judgment is as follows:
Reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
The acceptance fee for the second instance case is 25,672 yuan, which shall be borne by Beijing Guanyuan Sub-branch of Bank of Communications (paid).
This is the final judgment.