Jailed ATM cash thief appeals to Guangdong high court to restore reputation

Xu Ting, a migrant worker who was jailed for five years on theft charges, has appealed to the high court in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, in a bid to restore his reputation.

Xu, 30, was originally given a life sentence for theft after making 171 withdrawals from a Guangzhou Commercial Bank automatic teller machine (ATM) totaling 175,000 yuan ($28,543) in 2006, when his account was only debited 175 yuan for the transactions.

His term was then reduced to five years in September 2008 following a public outcry, the Global Times reported earlier. Xu has already been released from jail after serving his sentence.

Xu, who appealed to the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court on May 9 by submitting all the required materials on May 13, said he was not a thief who had intended to steal money. He argued that the bank should take the responsibility for the malfunctioning machine that made him treat his debit card as a credit card, the Taiyuan-based Shanxi Daily reported Wednesday.

Xu said he knew the court might not open the case again, but it would mean something.

"It is defined as theft when people take money knowing that the machine was malfunctioning," Qu Xinjiu, professor with the China University of Political Science and Law, told the Global Times, adding that the money withdrawal by Xu was illegal.

"But the bank has also to take some responsibility, rather than view itself as a victim," said Qu, adding that the court should think twice about the length of the penalty imposed.

A previous online survey conducted by 163.com in 2008 showed that over 93 percent of 120,100 respondents were against the sentence, with most viewing the punishment as way too severe.

"He was greedy to some degree but did not deserve a five-year imprisonment," a Weibo user told the Global Times Wednesday.

Last year, a similar case also occurred in the UK, when an HSBC ATM started giving out double the money people had requested. Crowds lined up to take advantage of the malfunction, but the bank decided not to demand the money back and took responsibility for the loss.