A Shanghai resident, Ms. Gu, recently reported an issue regarding her fixed deposit certificates issued by China Construction Bank (CCB) in 1997. When she attempted to withdraw the funds at CCB's Huangpu branch in June 2025, the bank staff informed her that the deposit records could not be located in their system due to the lengthy time span and requested her to wait for further verification.

Ms. Gu stated that she had deposited two sums of 3,000 yuan each in August and September 1997 under a three-year housing savings plan, which was set to auto-renew upon maturity. After nearly three decades, the accrued interest was estimated at over 2,000 yuan. However, when she visited the branch to withdraw the funds, the bank claimed they could not trace the deposit records.

Ms. Gu waited for three months without any updates. After filing a complaint, CCB responded that they were actively searching for the records, even dispatching staff to check archives in Fengxian and Xiamen. The bank later explained that the discrepancy might stem from a system limitation—Ms. Gu’s name contained a rare character ("珮") that was not supported by the bank’s system at the time. Instead, a substitute character ("佩") was manually entered and stamped.

Ms. Gu expressed frustration, noting that other deposits from the same period—including those from 2004—were successfully withdrawn despite similar name discrepancies. She questioned why CCB, as a major bank, failed to resolve the issue while other banks managed similar cases smoothly.

A CCB Huangpu branch employee, Ms. Liang, acknowledged the problem lay with the bank’s system, which had undergone multiple upgrades since 1997. She explained that a cross-departmental team was formed to investigate, but the original records remained untraceable. The bank is now reviewing internal procedures to process the withdrawal as an "extraordinary expense."

Legal experts emphasized that under China’s Commercial Bank Law and judicial interpretations, banks must honor valid deposit certificates unless they can prove the records are fraudulent. Since Ms. Gu provided authentic certificates, CCB is obligated to fulfill the payment without further delay.

CCB’s Shanghai branch has assigned personnel to retrieve the original documents, citing the extensive workload as the reason for the delay. The bank has yet to provide further comments. Ms. Gu continues to await resolution to access her long-held savings and interest.