由于立法的滞后和理论的空缺,伪银行卡盗刷行为所引起的民事纠纷案件,同案不同判的情况屡见不鲜,司法裁判尺度不统一,不仅影响了持卡人和银行的切身利益,也损害了人民法院的司法权威和公信力,甚至可能诱发持卡人的道德风险,不利于社会诚信体系的建设。伪银行卡案件属于一般的民事纠纷案件,在举证责任分配上应遵循“谁主张,谁举证”的一般性举证原则。同时,由于银行卡使用的私密性,就银行卡真伪和密码的泄露责任,当事人往往难以举证,陷入举证责任僵局。如何分配举证责任,并且将“推定原则”和“公平合理原则”与一般举证原则灵活结合运用,对该类案件的处理具有重大意义。在认定伪银行卡交易后,持卡人和银行的过错责任大小,决定了双方民事责任承担的范围。本文以举证责任分配和民事责任承担为视角,对伪银行卡民事案件的相关问题进行探讨。 Because of the lag vacancies and theory of legislation, the situation of civil disputes pseudo-bank card fraudulent behavior caused by different co-contracting uncommon, justice scales are not uniform, not only affects the vital interests of cardholders and banks, but also damage The judicial authority and credibility of the people’s court may even induce the cardholder’s moral hazard, which is not conducive to the construction of a social credit system. The case of counterfeit bank card belongs to the common case of civil disputes. The principle of general proof of “who claims and who evidences” should be followed in the distribution of the burden of proof. At the same time, due to the confidentiality of the use of bankcards, the bankruptcy of bankcards and the disclosure of passwords, the parties often find it hard to burden them with the burden of proof stalemate. How to allocate the burden of proof and apply the principle of “presumption of fairness” and “principle of fairness and reasonableness” in combination with the principle of general proof is of great significance to the handling of such cases. After confirming the transaction of the counterfeit bank card, the fault liability of the cardholder and the bank determines the scope of the civil liability assumed by both parties. In this paper, the distribution of burden of proof and the assumption of civil liability from the perspective of the relevant issues of the pseudo-bank card civil case.