HONG KONG: Hong Kong businessman Marcus Wong, the victim of a HK$2.5 million theft carried out through a banking machine, has been told the only means for him to recover his money is to sue the Shenzhen bank where the money had been deposited.

He's also been advised that public sympathy and concern over the incident could exert pressure on the banks and strengthen his case in court.

"My lawyers advised me to publicize my story widely through media, to draw more attention from the public. If banks do not face up to their own problems, every other card holder could be the next victim like me," said Wong.

Wong's lawyers earned nationwide acclaim during the famed Xu Ting case in 2007. Xu, 24 years old, successfully withdrew 170,000 yuan from an ATM machine when he had only 174 yuan in his account. He was sentenced to life imprisonment at the conclusion of the first trial. However, as the public collectively held the bank responsible for its own ATM dysfunction and criticized the court for imposing an excessive penalty on Xu, the appeal eventually reduced the imprisonment to five years.

Wong said he believed he deserved even more public sympathy, because he did nothing wrong. However, the litigation fee concerns Wong. He noted that because someone used a fraudulent bank card to withdrew the money from his account at a Macao jewelry shop, he now faces severe financial burdens.

"The law firm offered me three choices, and none of them is cheap. In consideration of my current financial status, I think I will pay them a smaller amount at first, maybe 50 or 60 thousand yuan, and share a certain percentage of retrieved money if I win the case," said Wong.

"Lawyers said the whole proceedings could last up to two years, if either party appeals or the court lags. I don't know how to run my business during the next two years. The whole bankcard rip-off thing left me no money, cost my time. I am not even in the mood to deal with the business any more," said Wong.

Wong said he is disappointed with what he called the buck-passing attitude of the Bank of Communications (BoCom) in Shenzhen. He said the bank has not contacted him in the past few weeks. Wong said the Macao police said the chances of cracking the case are very slim, because the bank failed to report the case or send relevant documents in a timely manner. Closed-circuit recordings at the jewelry shop where the transaction took place also were wiped out owing to the delay in a report being filed to the Macao police by the Shenzhen bank and the Shenzhen police.

The only thing that could cheer Wong a bit, he says, is that his lawyers are optimistic.

A judge surnamed Tang in Jiangsu province said Wong has a strong case. Tang said private individuals almost never won any lawsuits against the banks in the past. However, in recent years, more and more judgments have favored private individuals, especially when the cases were under the scrutiny of the whole society.

Tang said banks were responsible for protecting depositors when they issued bankcards to the clients. Unless the bank was able to prove Wong's negligence in using his bankcard, the bank should be liable for returning the entire amount that Wong lost.

Wong, a Hong Kong businessman, was informed by a text message in the dawn of October 14 that his Shenzhen bank account had been raided in a bogus transaction that took place at a jewelry shop in Macao. Wong said he hasn't been to Macao for almost a year, and the bank card was still with him even as the fraudulent transaction was taking place.

BoCom said it would not refund the lost money to Wong, unless the police cracked the case or the court so ordered.

(HK Edition 11/26/2009 page1)