Who is to blame for the loss of buying funds in the bank?
Can you just admit that you are unlucky?
Recently, the China Judgment Documents Network published a second-instance civil judgment on financial entrusted wealth management contract disputes, which may give investors an important reminder.
According to reports, the plaintiff in this case is Ms. Ma, a "post-60s" investor in Beijing, and the defendant is the Beijing Branch of China Everbright Bank.
According to Ms. Ma's description, she spent 1.1 million yuan on the fund purchased at China Everbright Bank, and lost nearly 500,000 yuan after holding it for three years.
Ms. Ma could not accept this fact, and took China Everbright Bank to court, demanding compensation for the huge financial losses she had suffered.
The case went through two trials. The first-instance court rejected Ms. Ma's claim for compensation, but the second-instance judgment was reversed. The court changed the judgment that Everbright Bank Beijing Branch compensated Ms. Ma for 300,000 yuan in investment losses. At the same time, it ruled that this judgment was final.
According to reports, in 2015, Ms. Ma invested 1.1 million yuan to subscribe for a stock fund from Beijing Branch of China Everbright Bank.
She held the fund for three years, and redeemed the fund in April 2018, receiving a redemption amount of 613,200 yuan.
In other words, after spending 1.1 million yuan to buy and hold the fund for three years, Ms. Ma lost 486,800 yuan in the end, with a yield of -44.25%.
According to the civil judgment published by China Judgment Documents Network, in April 2015, Ms. Ma applied to subscribe for the "Everbright Financial Holdings Taishi No. 3 Stock Securities Investment Fund" (hereinafter referred to as "Taishi No. 3"), and filled in the "application".
Ms. Ma claimed that in March 2015, Everbright Bank conducted a customer suitability questionnaire for Ms. Ma regarding its sunshine wealth management product "Duo Libao". According to the questionnaire, Ms. Ma was a stable investor.
The "Explanation" of the litigation fund stated that the risk-return characteristics of Taishi No. 3 Fund are: the fund presents the risk-return characteristics of higher risk and higher return.
As confirmed by the second-instance trial, Everbright Bank recognized that the investment products involved in the case were relatively high-risk, which did not match Ms. Ma's risk assessment.
However, China Everbright Bank maintains that, based on its internal business rules, investors can also purchase products with higher risk levels as long as they promise to bear their own risks.
Article 31 of the "Guiding Opinions on the Applicability of Securities Investment Fund Sales" stipulates: "Fund sales agencies shall include the content of the fund investor's willingness statement in the fund subscription or subscription application. Fund investors are required to confirm when subscribing or applying for funds, and record the fund investor’s confirmation information on the sales business information management platform.” Article 32 stipulates: “Fund sales agencies are prohibited from violating fund regulations. Investors are willing to sell products to fund investors that do not match the risk tolerance of fund investors.”
After investigation, the "Application Form" filled out by Ms. Ma was a formatted text provided by Everbright Bank. Although the words "Exceeded my risk tolerance and voluntarily assumed the risk" were printed on the text, there was no Ms. Ma's confirmation information in the signature section. The words themselves are not bolded or bolded or otherwise prominent.
Although there is a bold content in the last column of the standard form, that is, "I have carefully read the contract, product brochure and other information of this collective asset management plan, as well as the investor notices and risk warnings on the back of this application, and accept the contract, The legal terms of the prospectus and relevant information for investors, understand the rights and obligations, understand and bear the investment risks of the asset management plan of securities companies, voluntarily apply for the collective asset management business of the above-mentioned securities companies represented by China Everbright Bank, and guarantee The information and materials provided are true and effective”, and Ms. Ma’s signature is in this column, but the content itself does not involve special instructions beyond my risk tolerance.
In the end, the court of second instance revoked the first-instance judgment and ordered Everbright Bank Beijing Branch to compensate Ms. Ma for investment losses of 300,000 yuan.
At the same time, the judgment was ruled to be final.
Daily Economic News Comprehensive Red Star News, China Judgment Documents Network