Is the bank s no responsibility for leaving the counter to protect the interests of depositors or

The bank is not responsible for protecting the interests of the bank, because this is not responsible for the bank's employees who make mistakes and have less money, if there is more money in the wrong bank, the bank will recover losses through this channel, and the bank is an enterprise with the goal of making a profit, and it is more to safeguard its own interests

I think it's about protecting the interests of the bank, because if something goes wrong, the bank won't be responsible.

Both. The bank hopes that depositors will carefully check their personal materials and other items before leaving the counter, so as to help depositors reduce the loss of goods and avoid unnecessary risks borne by the bank, which is good for both parties.

I think this burial rule is very humane. But in the process of implementation, I think that both bank staff and customers should abide by this rule and regulations, and the systems are two-way, so that people will be convinced.

The meaning of this sentence is that when you withdraw the money, you must make an inventory, and then leave after the inventory is completed.

I think that the bank is not responsible for leaving the counter, which should be a constraint on the rules of both the bank and the depositor, reminding everyone to count the cash in person when handling business, to avoid mistakes, and to avoid unnecessary trouble to the bank and depositors.

I think such an approach is of course unreasonable for depositors, because the clause is a mutual agreement between the two parties, and it should be binding on both parties, so it means that the bank and the depositor have certain responsibilities. It cannot be said that because of the mistakes of their employees, all the blame is placed on the customer. If we take the money and leave and find that the money is less, then they are not responsible for leaving the cabinet to prevaricate.

But if we count more money to the royal shortage, can we also use such a reason to scold them?

From the examples we have seen in reality, it is obvious that no, if you take the money and you don't return it, they will go to the police, saying that you are stealing or fraud and other crimes. Do you think such an act is particularly funny, this is a typical example of only allowing the governor to set fires, not allowing the people to light lamps, why do you have to bear the mistakes you make, we still have to bear the problems ourselves, this is too much to say.

In fact, I think this should belong to the town leaders themselves to stipulate a overlord clause, if this treaty can be treated fairly on both sides, then I don't think the customer will have any opinions, after all, this is a very common sense thing, but the bank has always only cared about itself and will not care about others. To take the simplest example, if a person has deposited money in the bank and then he unfortunately leaves this world, will the bank notify his family of the money he deposited? Definitely not.

But if he still owes a lot of money to the bank after he leaves, then I believe that they will demand all kinds of money and demand that his family pay back the money.

This is a typical large-scale double-standard scene, I think this kind of behavior is very illegal, and it is also an unacceptable thing for many people. It's okay to have rules, but rules can't just target me.

It is very unreasonable for depositors, and it is unfair and irresponsible for depositors for banks to leave the counter.

It is very unreasonable, the bank is only doing this for their benefit, and there is no benefit to the people.

Jin Xiao's financial institution clearly stipulates that "no responsibility is not responsible for leaving the counter", which is also the bank's dead rule, but many people think that this is those overlord clauses, requiring that all dead people are alive, why does the bank clearly stipulate these overlord clauses? In fact, the purpose is to provide a basis for some subsequent disputes between banks and depositors. Yinding's stipulation that "no responsibility for leaving the counter" actually means that the depositor orders the cash at the interface, and any problems can be clearly explained on the spot.

As long as you leave the bank counter, the bank is not responsible. Suppose everyone takes the money, at this time, if there is a robbery, your money does not leave the display cabinet, then I have to take pictures or watch the surveillance, although I did not leave the bank counter, but if the money is lost, the financial institution will not be responsible, if your money is not taken out at this time, in the hands of the bank staff, then it belongs to the counter and does not leave the counter, at this time, the financial institution will not be responsible, because the money can be insured.

If we withdraw money, the financial institution gives everyone more money, even if you leave the bank counter, the financial institution will be held responsible, if you don't pay back, feel that you are not responsible for leaving the counter, then the bank will file a lawsuit against you, which is illegal in China, if you want to spend this large amount of money, you can't repay, you also need to bear legal responsibility, and the people's court will let you take the property to repay, of course, this must be monitored by the financial institution as direct evidence.

Under normal circumstances, if it is true that the depositor gets less money mainly because of the carelessness of the bank staff, in fact, the financial institution will admit the account according to the inventory. For example, if you go home and retrieve the surveillance video, the amount in the money machine is significantly different from the amount you withdraw, then the financial institution will not repay the accounts you earned from labor according to the internal structure database. If the financial institution refuses to repay, you can sue the bank as well, as long as the facts are clear, you will definitely get the relevant lawsuit.

From the analysis of the actual situation, the "no responsibility for leaving the counter" put forward by the bank, of course, is the most beneficial to the bank, which means that the bank is not responsible for the user after the user leaves the bank counter.

It is that the bank is not responsible for the depositor, which is what it means that the bank is not responsible for leaving the counter.

I think the bank is not responsible for the depositor, because it has been taken out, it is not within the custody of the bank.

"No responsibility for leaving the counter" means that the bank does not need to be responsible to the depositor, not that the depositor does not need to be responsible to the bank, on the contrary, the depositor still needs to be responsible to the bank. On the surface, both parties need to comply with this clause, but in fact, this clause is beneficial to the bank, and the customer needs to pay attention to the fact that before leaving the counter, you must accurately count the property you take out at the counter, and sign after the inventory is correct, so as to avoid losses for both parties.

Banks are not accountable to depositors, as they pay less to their customers than they should have withdrawn. As a simple example, a customer goes to the bank to withdraw $2,000, and the bank actually delivers $1,900, less than $100, if the customer does not face the teller at the counter to count the funds and sign his name. On the one hand, it is equivalent to the customer's acquiescence that the funds handed over to you by the teller are correct, and on the other hand, the customer's signature is a valid certificate, and it is also impossible to compensate for the less than 100 yuan after leaving the counter.

The reason is very simple, the teller is not a robot, even if it is a money detector, there will be banknote adhesion, less money, not to mention manual counting, so before leaving the counter, be sure to count the first source of good funds, even if it is later found that the funds are small, the bank will immediately call the banknote monitoring, but also a kind of protection for themselves.

Depositors are accountable to the bank, which is reflected in the fact that the bank overpays the customer more than the customer should have withdrawn. For example, if a customer goes to the bank to withdraw 2,000 yuan, and the bank actually submits 2,100 yuan, more than 100 yuan, if the customer does not count the funds at the counter in front of the teller and sign his name, the bank will still hold the customer responsible, so don't take chances and immediately consume the excess funds. If you refuse to return the funds, you will be sued by the bank for "unjust enrichment", and if the excess funds are larger, you will also need to pay the corresponding interest.

If the excess funds are small, some banks will automatically deduct them when they check that the balance in your card is sufficient to pay.

Therefore, the bank's "no responsibility for leaving the counter" is only a unilateral clause, and the bank does not need to be responsible for the depositor, which is the fundamental interpretation of this clause. In order to avoid such incidents and bring unnecessary trouble to yourself and the bank, you must count all the funds withdrawn before leaving the counter, and you must not take chances.

I think it is the depositors who need to be responsible for the bank if they do not cheat, because once the coins leave the bank counter, there may be changes in the depositors, and they may be wronged, so there is such a rule.

It is the bank that is not responsible to the user, because the money is withdrawn from the bank, and they do not do this job well when the staff gives the money.

It is the bank that is not responsible to the customer, because when people withdraw money and deposit money, the bank staff will always do something wrong.

Banks are not responsible for depositors, and if depositors take more money, they will definitely sue.