Regarding the disputes over bills, the editor has also shared many times in previous articles. Today, I will continue this topic and talk about the cases of disputes over bill discounting and return of bills.
1. Basic situation An employee surnamed Liu of Bank A stole the bank's "special seal for draft"
on a real paper bank acceptance bill, and forged the private seal of the legal representative of the accepting bank, the name of the issuing unit, the account number and the official seal . The criminal suspect sold a fake bill of exchange for 1 million yuan and a forged acceptance agreement to Li in Sichuan for 600,000 yuan, and Li then endorsed and transferred the bill of exchange to Wang, who has no business relationship with him. With the draft, the acceptance agreement and a product purchase and sale agreement between Li and the forged drawer, Wang applied to Bank B for a discount. Bank B sent an inquiry telegram to Bank A, which was intercepted by Tian, an employee of the post office where Bank A was located, and sent an inquiry telegram in the name of Bank A stating that "this bill of exchange is issued by the bank". After receiving the inspection telegram, Bank B made a discounted loan to Wang. The discounted bill of exchange had obvious flaws, and the word "two" in the amount of the bill was misspelled. On the grounds that the fake bill of exchange was discounted, the Court of Appeal requested that Bank B should bear the civil liability for the loss of the amount of the bill of exchange, and that Bank B and the post office should bear the expenses paid by Bank A for recovering the money and the litigation costs in this case.
2. Judgment Result
Bank B has gross negligence in handling the discount, and the payment responsibility for the discount shall be borne by itself. The collection fee requested by Bank A shall be borne by itself.
3. Analysis and Comment
The bills discounted by Bank B were forged bills by the criminal suspect after stealing the special seal of the appellant (Bank A) for bills of exchange. The bearer buys the counterfeit bill at a low price, and in the case of no business relationship with the endorsee, endorses the bill of exchange and the endorsee applies for discounting. is fraudulent. Discounted bills are invalid bills, and the bearer has no rights on the bill. There is no causal relationship between Bank A and the bill of exchange being discounted by Bank B. Bank A has not accepted the bill of exchange and has no fault in discounting the bill of exchange. Bank B's discount on the bill of exchange with obvious defects is a gross negligence. For payment, the criminal suspects who forged or used invalid drafts should seek the discounted bills fraudulently.
The person who does not sign the bill of exchange is not responsible for the bill. Bank A did not accept the bill of exchange at all and delivered it to the payee, so it did not constitute acceptance. The fact that the criminal suspect stole the official seal cannot be regarded as Bank A's signature act on the bill of exchange, and the bill of exchange should be deemed invalid. Bank A and Bank B do not have a relationship of rights and obligations under the negotiable instruments law.
The acts of the criminal employees of Bank A and the Post and Telecommunications Bureau forging fake bills and sending fake telegrams are the actions of the employees of the unit and should not be regarded as the behavior of the unit. The unit does not bear civil responsibility. .
1. Basic situation An employee surnamed Liu of Bank A stole the bank's "special seal for draft"
on a real paper bank acceptance bill, and forged the private seal of the legal representative of the accepting bank, the name of the issuing unit, the account number and the official seal . The criminal suspect sold a fake bill of exchange for 1 million yuan and a forged acceptance agreement to Li in Sichuan for 600,000 yuan, and Li then endorsed and transferred the bill of exchange to Wang, who has no business relationship with him. With the draft, the acceptance agreement and a product purchase and sale agreement between Li and the forged drawer, Wang applied to Bank B for a discount. Bank B sent an inquiry telegram to Bank A, which was intercepted by Tian, an employee of the post office where Bank A was located, and sent an inquiry telegram in the name of Bank A stating that "this bill of exchange is issued by the bank". After receiving the inspection telegram, Bank B made a discounted loan to Wang. The discounted bill of exchange had obvious flaws, and the word "two" in the amount of the bill was misspelled. On the grounds that the fake bill of exchange was discounted, the Court of Appeal requested that Bank B should bear the civil liability for the loss of the amount of the bill of exchange, and that Bank B and the post office should bear the expenses paid by Bank A for recovering the money and the litigation costs in this case.
2. Judgment Result
Bank B has gross negligence in handling the discount, and the payment responsibility for the discount shall be borne by itself. The collection fee requested by Bank A shall be borne by itself.
3. Analysis and Comment
The bills discounted by Bank B were forged bills by the criminal suspect after stealing the special seal of the appellant (Bank A) for bills of exchange. The bearer buys the counterfeit bill at a low price, and in the case of no business relationship with the endorsee, endorses the bill of exchange and the endorsee applies for discounting. is fraudulent. Discounted bills are invalid bills, and the bearer has no rights on the bill. There is no causal relationship between Bank A and the bill of exchange being discounted by Bank B. Bank A has not accepted the bill of exchange and has no fault in discounting the bill of exchange. Bank B's discount on the bill of exchange with obvious defects is a gross negligence. For payment, the criminal suspects who forged or used invalid drafts should seek the discounted bills fraudulently.
The person who does not sign the bill of exchange is not responsible for the bill. Bank A did not accept the bill of exchange at all and delivered it to the payee, so it did not constitute acceptance. The fact that the criminal suspect stole the official seal cannot be regarded as Bank A's signature act on the bill of exchange, and the bill of exchange should be deemed invalid. Bank A and Bank B do not have a relationship of rights and obligations under the negotiable instruments law.
The acts of the criminal employees of Bank A and the Post and Telecommunications Bureau forging fake bills and sending fake telegrams are the actions of the employees of the unit and should not be regarded as the behavior of the unit. The unit does not bear civil responsibility. .