卷入银行职员诈骗案被划扣近两千万 映客不服法院裁定提复议

Core Viewpoint - The case involves a former employee of Everbright Bank who embezzled approximately 94.48 million yuan over 13 years, using a significant portion of the funds (around 60 million yuan) for tipping on live streaming platforms like Inke and Douyin. The court has ordered the live streaming platform, Beijing Milaiwu Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Milaiwu), to return nearly 20 million yuan in earnings from these tips, which the company disputes as it claims the earnings were legally obtained [1][2][3]. Summary by Sections Background of the Case - The fraud was perpetrated by a bank employee, who misled clients into investing in fictitious financial products, resulting in a total fraud amount of over 94.48 million yuan. The employee used the funds to tip streamers on live platforms, with 59.51 million yuan on Inke and 1.7 million yuan on Douyin [2]. Court Rulings and Legal Proceedings - The Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled that the tips made by the fraudster were not legitimate expenses and ordered the recovery of funds from the live streaming platforms and the streamers who received tips above 20,000 yuan. The court's decision was based on the premise that the tips contributed to the inability to repay the victims [3][4]. Dispute Over Fund Recovery - Milaiwu has contested the court's order, arguing that it acted in good faith and was unaware that the funds were derived from fraudulent activities. The company claims it fulfilled its due diligence obligations and that the tips were part of normal business operations [6][7]. Legal Concepts Involved - The concept of "good faith acquisition" is central to the dispute, where Milaiwu argues that it should not be liable for returning the funds as it did not know the source of the tips was illegal. The victims, however, argue that the tips should be considered gifts without a legal basis for recovery [6][7]. Responsibility of Financial Institutions - Milaiwu has suggested that Everbright Bank should bear some responsibility for the fraud due to inadequate oversight of its employees. This raises questions about the accountability of financial institutions in preventing employee misconduct [9][10].