Tens of millions of deposits had been requested by the president, but the bank was only willing to pay half of it. (Photo/Review from Jiupai News)
A man surnamed Li in mainland China at the end of 2018 found that he could not withdraw his deposits in Nanjing Jiangning Branch of Postal Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as Jiangning Branch of Postal Savings) Including interest, the accumulated amount is approximately RMB 2.43 million (about NT$10.76 million). After the police intervened in the investigation, it was discovered that the president of the bank had embezzled the deposits without authorization. As a result, the bank only offered to pay half of the compensation, which made the parties angry.
“Jiu Pai News” reported that when Li Nan discovered the problem, they immediately called the police, and it was not until the police intervened that they discovered that, except for the first deposit information in the passbook, other access records were fake In April of the following year, a man surnamed Shi was arrested when he was president of the bank. In September 2020, Tokio was sentenced to 2 years and 3 months in prison for the crime of embezzlement.
In order to get the deposit back, Mr Li’s family sued the Jiangning Branch of China Post Savings Bank to court. The Nanjing Jiangning District Court ordered the Jiangning Branch of Post Savings Bank to return depositors’ deposits. However, the Jiangning Branch of Post Savings Bank refused to accept the ruling and filed an appeal on the grounds that “it is unreasonable for depositors not to inquire for a long time.”
In May last year, the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court annulled the first case verdict and sent it back for retrial. The transcript of the collegiate panel at the retrial stage shows that the bank believed that the plaintiff did not fulfill its duty of care in handling his own deposits. In addition, the depositor and the president, Shi Nan, were introduced through an intermediary, so the intermediary should bear the main responsibility, and finally only willing to pay RMB 1.2 million (about NT $ 5.31 million).
“Is this too ridiculous?” The victim, Mr Li, said his family is still waiting for the court’s final verdict, but during the waiting process, two of the three elderly people have died. “We are waiting for four years. , but we How many more years are there to wait?” Now the family only hopes that the court will make a reasonable judgment as soon as possible.
