本文所探讨涉克隆银行卡(存折)民事索赔案件的审理思路,乃基于违约之诉的定性。当民事案件当事人与犯罪嫌疑人不同、法律事实不同、经济纠纷与犯罪嫌疑不属同一法律关系时,经济纠纷案件与犯罪嫌疑案件分别处理。因合同相对方为开户行,交易行是开户行的代理人,故民事责任主体一般应为开户行。举证责任的分配应以“谁主张谁举证”的原则为基础,兼采事实推定的证据规则,根据公平原则和诚实信用原则,综合当事人举证能力等因素确定。当事人的实体责任应考量双方的合同义务履行情况,根据合同的约定和法律的规定来确定。 This article discusses the Clone Bank card (passbook) civil claims case hearing, is based on the nature of the breach of contract. When the parties to a civil case are different from the suspects, the legal facts are different, and when the economic dispute and the criminal suspect are not in the same legal relationship, the economic dispute cases and the criminal suspects cases are handled separately. Due to the opposite party to the contract for the bank, the transaction bank is the agent of the bank, so the main body of civil liability should generally be the bank. The distribution of the burden of proof should be based on the principle of “who advocates who evidences” and the evidence rules based on factual inference, based on the principle of fairness and honesty and credibility, and the comprehensive ability of the parties to prove the evidence. The substantive responsibilities of the parties should be considered the fulfillment of the contractual obligations of both parties and be determined according to the stipulations of the contract and the law.