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 (also the 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. Shortly after, Aunt Ding discovered that the deposits had mysteriously disappeared: 7.43 million yuan had bank transfer receipts but were not deposited into her account; another 5 million yuan in fixed deposits were transferred out without any bank notification.
 
On May 14, 2020, the Qingxu County Court originally scheduled to hear the civil dispute between Aunt Ding and Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank that day, but later postponed the hearing because the bank applied to convert the summary procedure into a regular procedure.
 

  
[2] Case Review
In early 2017, to help Wang Moumou (a relative's son-in-law and an employee of Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank's credit department) meet his wealth management targets, Aunt Ding transferred 4 million yuan and 1 million yuan successively.
 
In 2019, Wang Moumou redeemed the wealth management products, totaling 5.43 million yuan in principal and interest. He persuaded Aunt Ding to deposit the 5.43 million yuan as a fixed deposit, claiming it would help him complete his fixed deposit tasks for a promotion to department head. Later, he also converted 2 million yuan from a current deposit to a fixed deposit. Besides the bank receipt, Aunt Ding received a transaction alert from the Shanxi Rural Credit WeChat official account after the transaction, showing the business as "deposit account opening," the transaction type as "deposit account opening," and the transaction amount.
 
On April 3 and 4, 2019, Aunt Ding deposited 3 million yuan and 2 million yuan as fixed deposits through Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank's Qingyuan Sub-branch and its business department.
 
Thus, the total deposits 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.
 
After police investigation, on April 3 and 4, 2019, Aunt Ding's deposits of 3 million and 2 million yuan were transferred out, the 5.43 million yuan wealth management funds were not deposited into her account, and the 2 million yuan current-to-time deposit was also transferred out at the counter.

 

 
The bank deposit certificate turned out to be fake.
In early May 2019, Aunt Ding reported this to Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank, demanding the recovery of the funds and 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 the bank's surveillance footage is only kept for one month. Regarding the above 7.43 million yuan in bank deposit certificates, Qingxu Rural Commercial Bank stated that both certificates were forged.
 
Police investigation revealed that Wang, taking advantage of his position as a bank employee, handled over 12 million yuan, using fake deposit certificates and fake transactions to deceive depositors within the bank and transfer their funds away. Because Wang had previously lent money for profit, some of the funds became bad debts that he could not recover, so he had to resort to robbing Peter to pay Paul, secretly withdrawing depositors' funds to cover the huge shortfall.

 

 
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, problems in banks have emerged one after another, such as "personal information and transaction records being disclosed," "being loaned without consent," "having accounts opened without authorization," and "deposits being transferred away."
 
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 everyone to verify the authenticity of bank certificates. However, as a professional financial institution, the bank has an obligation to provide depositors with verification methods, processes, and conclusions, rather than simply saying "the certificate is forged." Moreover, even if the certificate was forged, was the information pushed to Aunt Ding via WeChat also fake?
 
If deposits already have so many problems, what about loans or complex financial products? 
 
The money in the bank is not the bank's, but the people's. The people deposit their hard-earned money in the bank based on trust. However, in recent years, the bank's credibility has become increasingly disappointing. Faced with these "scandals," if the public is not given a reasonable and lawful solution, who would dare to deposit their money in the bank?