A huge deposit vanished without a trace, and the thief turned out to be a bank employee

Compiled from: Upstream News, Tencent News
 
In 2019, Aunt Ding from Qingxu County, Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province, was persuaded by Wang Moumou, an employee of the county's rural commercial bank (who was also a son-in-law of Aunt Ding's relative), to deposit a total of 12.43 million yuan of her family's savings into Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank in succession. Not long after, Aunt Ding discovered that her deposits had mysteriously disappeared: of these, 7.43 million yuan had bank deposit rollover receipts but had not been credited to her account; another 5 million yuan in fixed deposits had been transferred out, yet she received no alert message from the bank.
 
On May 14, 2020, the Qingxu County Court was originally scheduled to hear the civil dispute between Aunt Ding and Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank that day, but because Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank applied to convert the summary procedure to ordinary procedure, the court decided to postpone the hearing.
 

  
[2] Case Review
In early 2017, Auntie Ding transferred 4 million yuan and then 1 million yuan to Wang Moumou (a son-in-law of a relative and an employee of the credit department of Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank) to help him meet his wealth management targets.
 
In 2019, Wang redeemed the wealth management product, with principal and interest totaling 5.43 million yuan. Wang then persuaded Aunt Ding to deposit the 5.43 million yuan as a fixed-term deposit, claiming it would help Wang meet the fixed-term deposit target and secure a promotion to branch manager. Subsequently, another 2 million yuan in demand deposits was also converted into fixed-term deposits. In addition to the bank receipt, after completing the transaction, Aunt Ding also received a transaction notification from the Shanxi Rural Credit Micro Bank official account, which showed the transaction as “Deposit Account Opening,” with the transaction type listed as “Deposit Account Opening” along with the transaction amount and other information.
 
On April 3 and 4, 2019, Auntie Ding deposited 3 million yuan and 2 million yuan respectively as fixed-term deposits through the Qingyuan Sub-branch of Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank and the Business Department of Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank.
 
At this point, the total deposit amounted to 12.43 million yuan.
 
Wang Moumou asked Aunt Ding to give him the deposit certificates, claiming he would collect gifts from Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank. Trusting him, Aunt Ding handed over the certificates. However, Wang Moumou never returned the certificates or the gifts, making excuses. Suspicious, Aunt Ding eventually chose to report the matter to the police.
 
Police investigation revealed that: on the afternoons of April 3 and April 4, 2019, the 3 million yuan and 2 million yuan deposited by Auntie Ding had already been transferred away; the 5.43 million yuan in wealth management funds had not been deposited into Auntie Ding’s account; and the 2 million yuan in demand deposits converted into time deposits had also been transferred away over the counter.

 

 
The bank deposit certificate turned out to be fake.
In early May 2019, Aunt Ding reported the matter to Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank, demanding the return of the funds and requesting access to the surveillance footage from the time of the incident. The bank's relevant person in charge refused to provide the video, citing that bank surveillance is only retained for one month. Regarding the aforementioned bank deposit certificates totaling 7.43 million yuan, staff at Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank stated that both certificates were forged.
 
Investigation by the police revealed that Wang, taking advantage of his position as a bank employee, handled over 12 million yuan in succession, using forged deposit receipts and fake transactions to defraud depositors within the bank and transfer their funds away. Due to his previous lending for profit, a portion of the funds became “bad debts” that he could not recover. He had no choice but to resort to robbing Peter to pay Paul, withdrawing depositors’ savings without authorization to fill the massive gap.

 

 
Illegal and in violation of regulations.
According to Article 52 of the Commercial Bank Law of the People's Republic of China, employees of commercial banks shall comply with laws, administrative regulations, and other business management provisions, and shall not use their positions to embezzle, misappropriate, or divert the bank's or customers' funds, nor shall they violate regulations by granting loans or providing guarantees to relatives or friends for personal gain.
 
Wang Moumou, as an employee of Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank, violated relevant regulations such as the "Shanxi Province Rural Credit Cooperative Staff Violation Punishment Measures" by handling financial management or deposit and withdrawal services for depositors. The bank failed to supervise such behavior, and the bank was at fault first.
 
In addition, Wang Moumou also embezzled funds belonging to the bank or customers, which further violated relevant laws. The bank did not adequately supervise this illegal behavior and also bears fault.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
 
Bank supervision must be strict to ensure the interests of depositors.
 
Recently, banks have been plagued by a relentless stream of problems, including “personal information and transaction records being disclosed,” “fraudulent loans taken out in one’s name,” “unauthorized bank cards opened in one’s name,” and “deposits being transferred away,” among others.
 
Between banks and depositors, banks have absolute professional and informational advantages, making them always the stronger party. This strength not only brings commercial profits to banks but also provides a strong protective shield for appeals after problems arise. Even if legal proceedings are initiated, depositors must bear pressures in terms of time, energy, and financial resources.
 
In this case, depositors are not professionals, and it is impossible for every individual to verify the authenticity of a bank certificate of deposit. However, as a professional financial institution, the bank has an obligation to provide depositors with verification methods, processes, and conclusions, rather than simply dismissing the matter with a statement that “the certificate of deposit is forged.” Moreover, even if the certificate of deposit is forged, could the information Aunt Ding received via WeChat push notification also be fake?
 
If deposits already have so many problems, what about loans or complex financial products? 
 
The money in the bank does not belong to the bank; it is the people’s money. It is out of trust that ordinary people deposit their hard-earned savings in banks. Yet in recent years, the credibility of banks has become increasingly disappointing. Faced with these “scandals,” if no reasonable and lawful resolution is offered to the public, who would still dare to deposit their money in a bank?