经验法则在支付授权证明中的规制——以《欧盟第二支付服务指令》为借鉴

Applying the rule of empirical reasoning in payment authorization-Reflections on the second Payment Services Directive in the European Union

如果发卡行或持卡人都无法提供直接证据证明诉争支付是否经过授权,则法院可以依据经验法则来认定有无支付授权之事实。经验法则的适用并不影响当事人之间的举证责任分配,也不影响对待证事实的证明标准。当事人之间关于支付授权事实的证成与反驳应以如下步骤展开:持卡人对支付未经授权的初步证明标准仅需满足优势证据规则。而发卡行对支付授权之证明须达到高度盖然性程度;对其中高度盖然性经验法则的类型化可以借鉴《欧盟第二支付服务指令》的经验,引入“加强的客户认证”之标准。对发卡行证明的支付授权事实,持卡人可以进行反驳;若其反驳成功动摇法官内心确信,则应由发卡行承担支付未经授权事实之后果,除非发卡行还得以排除合理怀疑地证明持卡人与第三人之间存在恶意串通。

In instances where neither the issuing bank nor the cardholder can provide direct evidence regarding the authorization of a disputed payment,courts may resort to the rule of empirical reasoning to ascertain the truth.This method does not affect the distribution of the burden of proof between the parties,nor does it affect the standard of proof.The procedure for proving and disproving the payment authorization unfolds as follows:The cardholder needs only prove the payment was unauthorized by preponderance of evidence.Meanwhile,the issuing bank must prove the payment was authorized by clear and convincing evidence.The empirical reasoning requirement maintained in the clear and convincing standard can be accomplished by establishing“strong customer authentication standards”which is advocated by the second“Payment Services Directive”in the European Union.The cardholder is entitled to contest the bank's assertion of authorized payment.If such a contestation substantially weakens the judge's belief,the bank will be held accountable for the unauthorized transaction,unless it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there was malicious collusion between the cardholder and a third party.