3.3 million to buy "financial management", which expires for 3 years "blood is not returned"!The latest judgment is here →

Banks buy financial management "transformation" private placement, how do investors ask for compensation?

A few days ago, a civil judgment announced by the China Referee Document Network showed that a 1.3 million "bank financial management" purchased by investor Mr. Cao in 2012 was actually a private equity product sold by the Kingshan Sub -branch of Guangfa Bank. After the product was "expired", he could not be redeemed.

It is worth noting that in November 2019, the China Banking Regulatory Commission has notified the cases of Guangfa Bank seriously infringing consumer rights. In order to promote private equity funds in the Bank of China, the Fund expired in August 2019. The fund has expired, with book floating losses, and the expiration cannot be recovered by the investment principal and income, which has caused consumers to complain. After investigation, Guangfa Bank has five major problems in the five major aspects of risk assessment, recommended materials, marketing training, product access, and plan implementation.

After the complaint report was responded to the regulatory department's investigation, can Mr. Cao's lawsuit be supported by the court? Look at the details--

1.3 million investment expired for 3 years without redemption

In the judgment, Mr. Cao described in detail his subscription product in the Ginoshan Sub -branch of Guangfa Bank:

In 2010, Mr. Cao had about 3 million yuan in house sales. In mid -2012, Zhou Mou, a staff member of the Jinshan Sub -branch of Guangfa Bank, called and said that there was a conference specifically for VIP customers inside the Jinshan Sub -branch, "promoting a good wealth management product." The promotion meeting was held on the second floor of the Kingshan Sub -branch of Guangfa Bank. The relevant leaders of the Guangfa Shanghai Branch and the Guangfa head office also participated in the promotion meeting.

On July 2nd, Zhou called Mr. Cao again, saying that the new product introduced last time is being sold. Zhou said that the compound yield of the product reached 60%-70%, 90%of the compulsory dividends each year, returned to the book in three years, and returned to the entire income at seven years. There is no risk of funds. Many employees of the Ginatsu Bank of Ginfa Bank are purchased, and the opportunity is rare.

Under the guidance of Zhou, Mr. Cao opened the card at the Jinshan Sub -branch of Guangfa Bank on the spot. His wife transferred the money to Mr. Cao's bank card, purchased 1.1 million yuan in principal wealth management products. Signing on the paper, but the date is not filled in. On July 12, Mr. Cao purchased 200,000 yuan at the previous process.

In this regard, Mr. Cao insisted that the bank staff had never told the product of the Jinluhe Fund during the purchase process, and he believed that the product was a wealth management product issued by the Guangfa Bank of Jinshan Sub -branch of Guangfa Bank.

In fact, Mr. Cao joined the CICC Entrepreneurship Investment Center (limited partnership), and the executive partners were CICC Innovation (Beijing) International Investment Management Consultant Co., Ltd. The information of Tianyancha shows that Mr. Cao holds 1.84%among the partnership and the subscription contribution is 1.3 million yuan.

Similar "misunderstandings" also exist among investors who subscribe to the product. In another case, some investors said that it was informed that it expired in 4 years when the wealth management product expired in August 2015, and the product was operating well. When the settlement was required again in August 2019, the product was told that the product was unable to settle.

In addition, in April 2017, the partnership was changed to 20 years, and the business period was extended to March 2032. If this is calculated, the private equity fund is still durable, and the redemption time is far away.

Infringement of consumer rights and interests and notified by supervision

After finding that the product could not be redeemed as scheduled, more than a dozen investors including Mr. Cao repeatedly complained to regulators such as the Banking Insurance Supervision Bureau. 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 official website of the China Banking Regulatory Commission issued the "Notice on the Cases of Emperor Insurance and the Cases of Consumer Rights". Among them, in 2012, according to its internal "Private Equity Fund (PE) on behalf of the Propaganda Cooperation Product Plan", Guangfa Bank was promoted to private equity funds in the Bank of China. The fund expired in August 2019, with a book floating loss, and the failure to recover the investment capital and income, which caused consumers to complain.

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

The first is to evaluate the risk tolerance of customers in accordance with the regulatory requirements. The bank cannot provide the regulatory department with risk assessment materials for the business promotion customer.

The second is that the documents and materials are properly kept in accordance with the regulatory requirements. The bank cannot provide the regulatory departments with related leaflets, SMS, video, conference records and other materials during the business development period.

Third, in the related promotion training materials for internal marketing staff, the risks that fund products may have to and investors may not be mentioned and analyzed. Among them, "annualized composite yield: According to the calculation of the fund project pool reserve project, the fund compound return rate of the fund can reach 62%-71%... dividend measures: 90%of the annual distribution profits and force dividends" and other content, which belongs to There are seductive expressions.

Fourth, the relevant requirements of the product plan were not strictly implemented in the access process. The bank reviewed the product plan on March 29, 2012, which clarified the principles of the bank's cooperation agency access and private equity fund project access. After investigation, it was found that the bank did not strictly implement the product plan in the cooperation agency access and related private equity fund products. Fifth, the relevant performance work is fully implemented in accordance with the formulation of the product plan. After investigation, the bank did not strictly formulate customer managers in accordance with the product plan, and promoted the rules for the operation of the operation, and fulfilled the responsibilities of training, assessment, unannounced visits, and random inspections.

During the lawsuit, Guangfa Bank Jinshan Sub -branch proposed that he was just a middle transfer. The two parties did not set up a sales relationship, but just did bank transfer. And the issuance time of the product involved was in 2012. At that time, there were no appropriate obligations, and the appropriate obligations should not be traced.

In response to Mr. Cao's mobile banking, there is a notarization document with 1.3 million yuan in equity assets, and the saying that "the point rewards can be received from the Guangfa Bank Jinshan Sub -branch system so far", Jinshan Sub -branch said that in addition to record customers in the Guangfa Bank Jinshan Sub -branch APP In addition to the products purchased by the Bank, the wealth management product information purchased by the customer not informed in the third party will be recorded. And customer points involve a variety of factors, and obtaining customer points cannot prove that it is related to the product.

Court: The bank is wrong

In the first instance lawsuit, Mr. Cao asked Guangfa Bank Jinshan Sub -branch to compensate the principal of 1.3 million yuan, and the annual compound yield was 71%of the compensation income loss of 6.461 million yuan, but it was not supported by the first instance court. In the second trial, Mr. Cao appealed to ask the bank to pay 1.3 million in principal and compensate the loss at 15%of the annualized interest rate.

The Shanghai Financial Court pointed out that this case is a dispute caused by individual investors to subscribe for private equity funds at the bank outlets. The focus of disputes includes: First, the product involved in the product is the financial product issued by Guangfa Bank, the China Jinluhe private equity fund initiated by CICC Innovation Company. Second, whether the product is involved in the case, whether there is an act of promoting sales on behalf of the Kingshan Sub -branch of Guangfa Bank, and whether there is any fault. Third, whether Cao Moumou has the right to request compensation for all investment capital and income.

First of all, Cao Moumou insisted that he purchased wealth management products issued by Guangfa Bank, but failed to provide corresponding written vouchers, nor could it explain what specific products purchased. According to the "Personal Settlement Business Application Form" provided by it, the information and "use and additional information" of the "personal settlement business", the fact that it registered it as a limited partner in the industrial and commercial registration, and the Shanghai Banking Regulatory Bureau " In the response, "the product is not the financial product of the Bank of China Bank of China", and the court does not accept Cao Moumou's claim.

Secondly, the Shanghai Financial Court issued a letter to the Shanghai Financial Court to investigate the relevant situation in the Shanghai Financial Court. According to the letter of investigation, the Shanghai Financial Court can determine the "agency sales institution" involved in the product "agency" of the Guangfa Bank of Jinshan Sub -branch. fact.

The Shanghai Financial Court pointed out that although private equity funds were only included in the scope of the "Securities Investment Fund Law" in June 2013, the actual sales facts have clearly stipulated the behavior of bank sales of private equity investment funds. However, the relevant regulations had been promulgated at the time to put forward clear supervision requirements for public fund -selling agencies.

Considering the higher investment risks of private equity funds than public equity funds, in the process of the private equity investment fund involved in the private equity investment fund involved in the private equity investment fund involved in the private equity investment fund, it should be based on the prudent attitude and objective attitude. Comprehensively fulfill the obligation of instructions and risk reminder obligations, fully understand and evaluate the customer's financial status, risk cognition and bearing ability, and sell suitable products to suitable investors.

In this case, Guangfa Bank Jinshan Sub -branch failed to prove that Cao Moumou's risk tolerance had been evaluated before the private equity fund product involved in the sales case, and its risk tolerance was matched with the case. Recording and video materials when applying for a business. The Shanghai Financial Court determined that Guangfa Bank Jinshan Sub -branch did not evaluate the risk tolerance of investors and did not properly keep business information.

However, regarding the actual incidence of losses, the third party provided the CICC Fund's 2019 to 2021 annual report, and the private equity fund can distribute assets in three years to increase year by year. The court believes that from the perspective of the underlying assets invested by the fund, two of them intend to go public on the motherboard and the New Third Board. The future development prospects are better. At present, Cao Moumou's investment loss has actually occurred.

The court pointed out that, in the case of CICC's unclear, Cao Moumou, as a limited partner, is in a state of unsure of equity shares after the liquidation. In this case, Cao Moumou requested compensation for investing in capital and losses of funds, and lack of contracts and legal basis.

In the end, the Shanghai Financial Court decided to reject the appeal and maintain the original judgment. Cao Moumou has the right to ask for the termination of partnership and liquidation. If other losses have not been settled after liquidation, the losses caused by illegal, violations or contracts due to ordinary partners and related parties are claimed.

Source: China Fund News

- END -