A bank card was inexplicably debited for over 175,000 yuan, with the funds used to repay a long-standing debt from a credit card the account holder never applied for?
On June 3rd, a bizarre financial dispute was reported by a Jiangsu radio station, drawing widespread attention to the case of a Nanjing depositor, Mr. He.
A fraudulent credit card that should have been closed nine years ago, due to multiple lapses by Hua Xia Bank Co.,Limited (ASX: HXB), accrued interest and debt continuously. Ultimately, exploiting a system loophole, the bank directly emptied the depositor's current account. While the principal was hastily returned, numerous violations by the bank remain evident.
Long-standing Fraudulent Card Triggers Massive Deduction
On April 27th, Mr. He's Hua Xia Bank Co.,Limited savings card recorded a large unauthorized transfer. 175,166.6 yuan was deducted with a note indicating a one-time credit card repayment, leaving his account balance at zero.
Upon investigation with the bank, it was found the deduction corresponded to a credit card opened in August 2017 using stolen personal information, with an initial overdraft of 59,000 yuan.
Back in 2017, Mr. He had already reported the matter to the bank and filed a police report. Hua Xia Bank Co.,Limited confirmed on-site that the card was fraudulently opened, immediately cancelled the related credit overdue record, stopped collections, and verbally promised to complete the card cancellation.
However, over the following nine years, the bank failed to execute the closure and payment stop. Interest and penalty fees accumulated annually, inflating the debt to 286,000 yuan.
The bank later attributed the deduction to a system upgrade error, where the invalid card's archive identifier became corrupted, causing the system to mistakenly recognize it as a valid account and trigger the internal automatic deduction mechanism. The bank refunded the entire principal two days after the deduction and formally cancelled the problematic credit card only by the end of May, offering only a verbal apology while refusing to compensate for interest losses incurred during the fund's occupation.
Legal Expert Points Out: Deduction Lacks Legal Basis
A practicing lawyer featured on the Jiangsu radio program pointed out that, from a legal perspective, Hua Xia Bank Co.,Limited's deduction action was fundamentally unlawful.
According to the Commercial Bank Law, personal savings deposits are strictly protected by law. Legal fund deduction can only occur via a court-issued compulsory deduction document or a written deduction agreement signed by the depositor. In this case, the card was opened using stolen identity from the start; the loan relationship had no legal connection to the depositor. The bank had no right to unilaterally transfer the depositor's savings to settle the disputed debt.
The lawyer added that the so-called system error cannot serve as a reason for exemption from liability. The initial failure in risk control during card issuance allowed the fraudulent application to succeed. After the dispute was supposedly resolved, the bank failed to cancel and archive the card as promised, allowing the debt to compound over years. The internal deduction system lacked an interception mechanism for historically disputed or fraudulent cards. These three consecutive internal control failures were the core reasons for the infringing deduction. Based on similar judicial precedents, when a bank makes an unauthorized deduction, it is legally required to refund the principal and compensate the depositor for the corresponding interest on the occupied funds.
Systemic Failures Across the Board Highlight Bank's Negligence
Reviewing the entire incident reveals clear, full-process vulnerabilities at Hua Xia Bank Co.,Limited.
A banking industry observer noted that, first, the card issuance review was virtually non-existent, with real-name system controls failing, allowing criminals to successfully obtain a credit card using stolen information, planting the initial risk.
Second, there was a lack of closed-loop management for customer complaints. A card already identified as fraudulent was left unattended for years. Staff only addressed credit reporting and collections, neglecting the mandatory agreement to cancel the card, allowing the liability to accumulate for nine years.
Finally, the internal deduction rules were crudely designed. The bank unilaterally assumed the right to cross-deduct between its own accounts without establishing a blacklist interception mechanism for problematic cards, allowing archive management loopholes to translate into depositor financial losses through system rules.
As of now, the over 170,000 yuan deducted by Hua Xia Bank Co.,Limited has been returned, and the fraudulently opened credit card has been cancelled. However, many questions from the public remain unanswered.
Who was the person who stole Mr. He's identity to apply for and misuse the card? Has Hua Xia Bank Co.,Limited conducted any investigation? The so-called "system loophole" allowed an account deemed fraudulent to be "revived." Is Mr. He's case an isolated incident? With such account management and risk control systems, how can depositors feel secure?
Conclusion
A nine-year-old unresolved case has resurfaced in public view through the forced deduction of a depositor's funds. The return of a single sum cannot conceal the systemic management flaws across the bank's entire chain. This incident also exposes weaknesses in some banks' safeguards for consumer fund security. How to strengthen internal control accountability and uphold the bottom line of deposit security remains a pressing issue for Hua Xia Bank Co.,Limited to address.
Comments