论文部分内容阅读
西藏读者张志军认为,银行和孙松应承担法律上的连带赔偿责任。孙松是银行职工,其行为在业务方面代表的是银行,存单与存根及银行公章皆是真实的。单从存单出具和管理的流程看,是银行内部管理的疏忽导致事件的发生,否则,陈雪就构成诈骗罪了。浙江读者单贤定也站在陈雪一方,他认为该存单具备合法有效的所有要件。孙松何时将存单交给陈雪母亲与存款关系是否有效没有必然联系。而浙江读者黄土洪则认为:一审判决是正确的,因为陈雪的存单确实与银行存根不一致,但银行的举证存在漏洞,如果银行能将存根上名为赵超的人找到,并证明赵超所持存单是真正的3078998号,那么,陈雪的存单才能完全确定为假存单。
Zhang Zhijun, a Tibetan reader, believes that banks and Sun Song should bear joint and several liability in law. Sun Song is a bank employee, his behavior in the business represents the bank, certificates of deposit and stubs and bank seals are true. From the process of issue and management of single deposit receipt, it is the negligence of bank internal management that leads to the occurrence of the incident. Otherwise, Chen Xue will constitute fraud. Zhexian Shanxian Ding also stood a side of Chen Xue, he believes that the deposit list has all the elements valid and valid. When does Songsong hand over the deposit slip to Chen Xue’s mother and the deposit relationship is not valid, it is not necessarily linked. Zhejiang Reader Huang Shurong believes that the judgment of the first instance is correct because Chen Xue’s deposit receipt does not coincide with the bank stub. However, there is a loophole in the bank’s proof. If the bank can find the stub named Zhao Chao, and prove that Zhao Chao The deposit is a real deposit No. 3078998, then, Chen Xue’s deposit can be completely identified as fake certificates of deposit.