Cimb信用卡被偷窃与盗用,求助！

udesignconcept

请各位大大提供意见，事情发生在去年11月，我在shahalam游泳时候，我的cimb信用卡和电话被偷窃。小偷是在subang刷了Rm12k。但我发现我的信用卡被偷时，立刻向cardcenter投报遗失也报了警。submit给了cimb所有的report,到最后cimb还是要我还50%，这是一笔很大得数额，我也还不起。急求各位有类似的遭遇要如何解决？
已经试过：
1. 投报CIMB (它们在4月时有finaldecision,要我还完全额）
2. 向bank negara咨询求助 (它们不理会，要我向FMB投报）
3. 投报FMB (在FMB调解下CIMB讲可以减到50%, 可是这还是很大的一笔数额，一直谈判与跟进，FMB的decision在上个月才出炉，最后还是偏帮CIMB要我还50%)

所有的方式已经尝试过了，现在真的的很无助，不懂还有谁可以帮我！急求各位的意见与帮忙。

BlazeA4

懒惰翻译，自己读：－

Liability on Unauthorised Credit Card Charges
After a day of intense retail therapy, you suddenly realise that you had left your credit card in one of the shops at the mall several hours ago. You experience heart palpitations at the thought of being charged astronomical sums for unauthorised or fraudulent transactions. What should you do?

The answer is simple. Report the loss of your credit card to your credit card issuer without any delay.

Clause 15.2 of Bank Negara’s Credit Card Guidelines (BNM/RH/GL-041-01)(the “Guidelines”) provides that the cardholder’s maximum liability for unauthorised transactions as a consequence of a lost or stolen credit card shall be limited to the specified by the issuer of credit cards, which shall not exceed RM250, provided the cardholder has not acted fraudulently or has not failed to inform the issuer of credit cards as soon as reasonably practicable after having found that his credit card is lost or stolen.

The efficacy of Clause 15.2 was tested in Diana Chee Vun Hsai v Citibank Berhad [2009] 6 CLJ 774. In this case, the cardholder reported the loss of her credit card to the issuer of her credit card on the day that she discovered its loss. The card issuer claimed a sum of RM1,859.01 from the cardholder as unauthorised charges incurred on her credit card. The card issuer relied on a provision in the credit card agreement which stated that the RM250 limit only applied to transactions effected within one hour prior to the reporting of the loss of the credit card.

The High Court ruled in favour of the cardholder and held that the Guidelines are subsidiary legislation and have the force of law. The Court also found that the credit card agreement must be construed in accordance with the Payment Systems Act 2003 and the card issuer could not circumvent the Guidelines in order to limit its liability. Accordingly, the Court held that the provision in the credit card agreement relied on by the card issuer to limit the application of the RM250 liability was “unreasonable, ridiculous and contrary to Clause 15.2 of the Guidelines”. The Court also held that the onus lay on the card issuer to prove that there had been unreasonable delay by the cardholder to report the loss of the card and that it had failed to produce any evidence to discharge this burden.

Hence, if you report the loss without delay, like Ms Chee did, you should be able to limit your loss to RM250 if the unauthorised charges exceed that amount.

cari_kent

請問時間點，比如以下：
上午十二點發現發現卡不見。馬上通知卡公司（十二點一分）
可是在十一點的時候就被人刷了五千，這種ｕｎａｕｔｈｏｒｉｚｅｄ　ｔｒａｎｓａｃｔｉｏｎ是否限制在ＲＭ２５０呢？謝謝。

carlosmak

吊银行才傻，给它RM250叫它滚蛋。
再吵找律师告他上法庭，再次索赔RM50K，然后叫它问同行CITYBANK记得DIANA CHEE没有。

Diana Chee Vun Hsai v Citibank Bhd

jeremykkt

学习了。diana 这个case law 到现在依旧maintain good law or has been overruled ?

resipsaloquitur

good law.

维恩

jeremykkt 发表于 8-12-2015 11:41 AM
学习了。diana 这个case law 到现在依旧maintain good law or has been overruled ?

我相信如果国家银行还是执行这一段clause的话, 信用卡用户还是受到保障的..