The "financial management" bought by 1.3 million yuan becomes "private placement"!Guangfa Bank was sentenced to "wrong"

Spend 1.3 million yuan

The "bank wealth management" product purchased

It is actually a private equity fund product that the bank sells

Mr. Cao will be Guangfa Bank Shanghai Jinshan Sub -branch

To court

recently

The court's final judgment sub -branch is "fault"

But rejected Mr. Cao's claim requesting compensation

How is this going?

Look at the reporter survey of "China Consumer Daily"

1.3 million yuan "financial management" becomes private equity

Mr. Cao complained that in July 2012, Zhou Mou, a staff member of the Kingshan Sub -branch of Guangfa Bank, told him that there was a "financial management" product specifically for VIP customers.

At the counter of the bank, Zhou introduced that "the compound yield of the product reaches 60%-70%, 90%of the compulsory dividends each year, returned to the book in three years, and returned to all income in seven years."

Under the guidance of Zhou, Mr. Cao opened the card and purchased the "financial management" product of 1.1 million yuan in the Golden -Shan Sub -branch of Guangfa Bank, and signed on several blank A4 paper in accordance with Zhou's requirements, but did not fill in the date. Since then, Mr. Cao has purchased another 200,000 yuan "financial management" product.

Unexpectedly, after purchasing the above -mentioned "wealth management" products, Mr. Cao turned out to be a limited partner of the CICC Entrepreneurship Investment Center with a shareholding ratio of 1.84%and the amount of contribution of 1.3 million yuan.

The court determines that the bank is fault

In August 2019, Mr. Cao complained to the court to the court due to the unable to redeem the product due to its expiration.

Mr. Cao said in the indictment: "During the purchase process, the bank staff never told the product's private equity fund product. From beginning to end, I thought that the product was a wealth management product issued by Guangfa Bank Jinshan Sub -branch."

Mr. Cao requested that the principal of 1.3 million yuan in compensation of the Kingshan Sub -branch of Guangfa Bank, and lost 6.461 million yuan in compensation yields at an annual compound yield of 71%, but did not be supported by the court of first instance. Mr. Cao appealed, asking for a judgment of the bank's payment of 1.3 million yuan, and compensation for the loss at 15%of the annualized interest rate.

The Shanghai Financial Court believes that the case is a dispute caused by individual investors to subscribe to private equity funds at the bank outlets.

Mr. Cao insisted that he purchased wealth management products issued by Guangfa Bank, but did not provide evidence to provide any evidence on the claim. Knowing. In addition, Mr. Cao stated in the two transfer use of "capital contribution", which was known and fulfilled the obligation to contribute. Therefore, the court did not accept the above claims of Mr. Cao.

After clarifying the nature of the product involved, the Shanghai Financial Court believes that the other focus of the case is: Does the Kingshan Sub -branch of Guangfa Bank have an act of promoting sales on behalf of them? If so, is there any fault in the above link?

It is understood that until June 1, 2013, the private equity fund party was included in the scope of the "Securities Investment Fund Law", and the "Administrative Measures for the Supervision and Management of Private Equity Investment Fund" was not promulgated on August 21, 2014.

In other words, when the facts of this case occurred, there were no laws and regulations and regulatory documents in China that clearly stipulated the behavior of bank sales of private equity funds products. The Kingshan Sub -branch of Guangfa Bank also argued that at the time, there was no provisions of appropriate obligations, and appropriate obligations should not be traced back.

The Shanghai Financial Court believes that although there was no regulations on private equity products at that time, there were clear supervision requirements for public fundraising funds. Considering that private equity funds had higher investment risks than public investment funds, Guangfa Bank Jinshan Sub -branch was sold at the agency sales. Based on the principle of "the interests of investors", with a cautious attitude, objectively and comprehensively fulfill the obligation to inform the informal and risk reminder obligations, strictly implement the principle of "understanding your customers", and Untimate fully understanding and evaluating, and based on this, it sells suitable products to suitable investors.

In the end, the Shanghai Financial Court identified the fact that the Ginseng Bank Jinshan Sub -branch was the fact that the product involved in the case of the "agency". Guangfa Bank Jinshan Sub -branch did not evaluate the risk tolerance of investors and did not properly keep business information.

Guangfa Bank was notified for infringement

"China Consumer Daily" reporter learned that after the product expired in August 2019, more than a dozen investors such as Mr. Cao complained to regulatory agencies such as the Bank of China Insurance Supervision and Administration Commission.

In October 2019, the Shanghai Banking Regulatory Bureau replied that after verification, the Shanghai Branch of Guangfa Bank of Shanghai Branch had not properly preserved the relevant records of customers, did not conduct risk assessment of all customers involved, allowing customers to be in related documents related to contracts in the contract. Signing on the blank page.

In November 2019, the "Notice on the Case of Emperor's Property & Casualty Insurance and the Case of Evil Consumer Rights" issued by the Consumer Rights Protection Bureau of the Banking Insurance Regulatory Commission pointed out that the 2019 private equity fund product of Guangfa Bank expired in August 2019. Consumer complaints caused by the inability to recover the investment of the investment and income as scheduled.

After investigation, Guangfa Bank had 5 aspects of acting in infringement of consumer rights and interests:

The first is to evaluate customers' risk tolerance in accordance with the requirements of regulatory regulatory requirements.

The second is that the documents and materials are properly kept in accordance with the regulatory requirements.

Third, in the internal promotion training materials, the risks that fund products may have to and investors are not mentioned and analyzed.

Fourth, the relevant requirements of the product plan were not strictly implemented in the access process.

Fifth, the relevant performance work is fully implemented in accordance with the formulation of the product plan. The Consumer Protection Bureau of the China Banking Regulatory Commission pointed out that the above behavior seriously infringed the basic rights such as consumers' right to know, fair trading, and the right to claim compensation in accordance with the law, and harmed the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.

Who will bear customer loss

Since there is a fault in Guangfa Bank, is it necessary to compensate?

The Shanghai Financial Court believes that the fund involved in the case has not been effective without Mr. Cao's consent to change the business period, and it should be determined that the product has expired in August 2019. However, the fund's distribution of assets has increased year by year, and future development prospects are better. In the absence of CICC, Mr. Cao's shareholding shall be in a state of unsure whether the equity share held after liquidation is profit or loss, and the degree of profit and loss. Therefore, it is not yet possible to confirm that Mr. Cao's investment losses have actually occurred, and the court's demands cannot support it.

Dong Zhengwei, a lawyer of Beijing Lianggao Law Firm, said in an interview with the China Consumer Daily:

Mr. Cao sued on the grounds of financial entrusted financial contract disputes. The trustee's responsibility in the commission relationship is large, and the purchase fund is investment financial management. Individuals should bear the risk of investment failure. Rejected. The court determined that there was a fault of banks, but this fault was not the direct reason for Mr. Cao to buy a fund losing money. Therefore, whether the bank should compensate the plaintiff to submit more evidence.

It is recommended that consumers who purchase the same product should first ask the fund manager to liquidate the due funding to determine how much the fund loses.

Produced by Chinese Consumer Newspaper New Media Editorial Department

Source/China Consumer News · China Consumer Network Reporter/Nie Guochun

Edit/Pei Ying

- END -