对取款人搞“有罪推定”，银行不能都甩锅给“反诈”

Core Viewpoint - The recent incident at a bank in Shandong has sparked significant debate regarding the excessive withdrawal restrictions imposed by banks, highlighting the need for a balance between anti-fraud measures and customer rights [1][2]. Group 1: Incident Overview - A lawyer faced high withdrawal thresholds and was asked to explain personal account transaction details while attempting to withdraw cash from a bank, raising concerns about the bank's practices [1]. - The bank set a withdrawal limit of 20,000 yuan, claiming it was necessary for anti-fraud efforts, but different branches of the same bank denied this policy [1]. - The local anti-fraud center clarified that the issue was not related to their operations, indicating it was a problem specific to the bank [1]. Group 2: Regulatory Context - The current regulations require banks to verify customer identity and the source of funds for cash transactions above 50,000 yuan, but proposed revisions aim to eliminate this fixed threshold, focusing instead on risk-based assessments [2]. - The 2025 draft revision emphasizes that financial institutions should conduct due diligence based on customer characteristics and transaction nature, rather than adhering to a strict monetary limit [2]. Group 3: Variability in Bank Practices - There is a noticeable inconsistency in how different bank branches implement withdrawal policies, with some branches imposing stricter requirements than the national standard [3]. - In certain regions, banks have set withdrawal limits even lower than the national standard, with some requiring extensive documentation for transactions as low as 10,000 yuan [3]. - The lack of uniformity in banking practices creates confusion for customers and undermines the stability expected in a unified national market [3]. Group 4: Legal and Ethical Implications - Banks do not have the authority to interrogate customers about their transaction history without legal procedures, and such practices can harm the bank's credibility and the integrity of the judicial system [4]. - The presumption of guilt against customers and the overreach of banks in enforcing anti-fraud measures can negatively impact public trust and the effectiveness of anti-fraud initiatives [4].