banking dispute
ankit gupta
(Querist) 02 July 2011
This query is : Resolved
situation: one bankk CEO detected fraud in bank, and filed complaint with EOW against several employees.
we are contesting the case from the accused side( Ms geeta).
she was involved in passing of the cheques against which cash was withdrawan fraudently and nothing else. she was bonafide in her act and didnt do it intentionally.
please tell the related judgments or suggestions.
i have to agrue the matter on 30/7/2011.
please reply soon
ankit gupta
(Querist) 02 July 2011
the fraud was in relation to fraudelent witdrawal by bank employees of the sailent accounts
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 03 July 2011
The criminal liability revolves around those who ventured and passed the cheques of the silent bank accounts.If at all you are not resposnsible it is your bounden duty to disprove the charge against you Unless the real culprits are brought to books,
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 07 July 2011
What are the charges framed against the accused. Might be criminal conspiracy colluding with other colleagues fecilitating withdrawal of money from silent accounts. When an account is dormant, it will not normally accept any postings (transactions) in the account unless the concerned authority in the Bank (supervising the deposit account) specifically authorises the transaction and bringing back the account into operative mode from dormant mode. Who has withdrawan the money? By the staff members themselves? Who has presented the cheques? Do you have a copy of complaint filed by the Bank with EOW? Whether they have mentioned specific names of any employees? What is the outcome of interrogations? Whether Branch is included in the case? Whether the payees of the cheques are identified? Whether the amount recovered? Some times, though there is no intention, unless it is proved, the person will be implicated if other players have the intention to commit the fraud. You should present a strong evidence that your client has performed his/her duty in normal course of business and in legitimate discharge of the duties and she does not have even remote knowledge of the fradulent intention of other players. Even to withdraw from dormant account, the signatures of the drawers of the cheques are to be verified. If it is not does the minimum precuation that the money is paid to the true owner is not adhered to and this is enough to implicate an employee in the conspiracy.
