Debit (payment transactions)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under load ( English debit ) is understood in the accounting and banking a book , by the on account of the debit balance is increased or an existing credit balance reduced or changed in a negative balance is. The opposite is the credit .

Accounting

In accounting, an account debit is generally understood to be a posting that reduces assets or increases debts, increases expenses or decreases income . It therefore depends on whether the account debit occurs on an active inventory account or a passive inventory account or an expense or income account .

Banking

In contrast to an account credit, a debit entry has no legal ( constitutive ) significance because it does not bring about any substantive change in the underlying claims. Rather, it is a real act with essentially declaratory effect. This also applies if a negative account balance (debit balance) is shown as a result of the debit entry. The account holder has the right to cancel an unauthorized debit entry by making a corresponding counter entry.

As with cancellation bookings , a legal distinction is made according to who initiated the debit to the account.

  • If the debiting was initiated by the bank holding the account, it is usually a matter of disposals by the customer for transfers , purchase of securities , types or precious metals as well as billing values from interest or fee debits by way of the closing of accounts . Cancellation bookings, through which an erroneously made credit note should be corrected, are less common.
  • If the debit does not come from the bank holding the account, it is only a matter of bookings from debits through the direct debit procedure . An account debit from a payment transaction is only effective for the bank customer if he has consented to this ( authorization ; § 675j BGB). As long as the debit from a payment order is revocable, the bank customer can revoke his payment order (Section 675j Paragraph 2 BGB).

After § 675T para. 3 BGB is a burden on the account of the debtor to make so that the value date earlier than the date is on which this account is debited with the payment amount.

According to No. 7, Paragraph 2, No. 4 of the AGB-Banken and No. 7, Paragraph 3, No. 5 of the AGB-Sparkassen, bank customers have a period of 4 or 6 weeks to raise objections to the closing of the accounts. However, this period is not an unlimited period of limitation. The account holder can object to a debit entry based on a direct debit authorization for an unlimited period of time. Approval cannot be seen in the mere silence of a daily account statement received . A mere silence on such an extract does not constitute a conclusive legal declaration, let alone an approval of account debits.

However, an implied approval according to the more recent case law of the Federal Court of Justice comes into consideration in particular if the paying agent recognizes regularly recurring direct debits from long-term obligations , ongoing business relationships or the collection of recurring advance tax payments and social security contributions. If, after a reasonable period of reflection, the debtor account holder, aware of a new direct debit that is within the scope of the already approved, does not raise any objections, the account-keeping bank may have a legitimate expectation that this debit entry should also exist. Such an assumption is above all justified because the paying agent in the current legal form of the direct debit authorization procedure is on the one hand dependent - recognizable for the account holder - on his legal declaration of approval in order to make the booking effective, but on the other hand the procedure is designed to that the account holder does not make an express declaration. In such a situation, there are no excessive requirements to be placed on approval through coherent behavior. This applies in any case if the account is used in business dealings. In this case, the paying agent can count on the account movements being tracked and checked promptly.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b BGH WM 1994, 1420 , 1422
  2. ↑ BGHZ 104, 374
  3. ↑ BGH, judgment of June 6, 2000, Az .: XI ZR 258/99 = BGHZ 144, 349
  4. ↑ BGH WM 1997, 1658 , 1660
  5. ^ BGH, judgment of March 1, 2011, Az .: XI ZR 320/09 = NJW 2011, 1434
  6. ↑ BGH WM 2010, 2023 Rn. 13