In order to preserve and increase the value of wealth, the bank purchased the wealth management products sold by the bank and did not want to lose more than 100,000 yuan. Mr. Hu sued the bank to the court. Recently, Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court concluded the second-instance case of property damage compensation disputes. It was found that the bank did not comply with the appropriate promotion obligations during the process of selling wealth management products, and there was an infringement fault. The bank was compensated for the loss of all the principal losses of Mr. Hu. yuan.
Claiming 180,000 yuan and interest
In March 2011, Mr. Hu subscribed for fund products sold by banks in the bank. When delivering the 1 million yuan subscription amount, Mr. Hu signed the fund transaction receipt and confirmed that the signature below: "I fully understand the risks of investing in open-end funds, voluntarily handle the fund business of banking agents, and bear the investment risk", and Sign below the Risk Warning Letter on the back of the transaction slip.
Later, due to the loss of the fund products, Mr. Hu filed a lawsuit against the defendant and the fund company for the third party, demanding that the bank be compensated for its loss of more than 180,000 yuan and interest during the investment period.
During the trial, the bank confirmed that there was no risk assessment for Mr. Hu when selling the products. However, before the transaction of the disputed wealth management products, Mr. Hu had conducted a risk assessment at the bank. The assessment results were: Mr. Hu's risk tolerance rating and the products suitable for purchase were stable.
The court of first instance held that the bank, as a financial product sales agency, has fulfilled its reasonable risk disclosure obligation. Mr. Hu shall sign the contract as if he has read and understood the contents of the contract text. As an investor with multiple investment and wealth management products, he should be able to predict the risk level of the disputed wealth management products and the resulting investment. The loss should be borne by yourself. The first instance verdict dismissed all petitions.
Mr. Hu refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and filed an appeal.
Only support compensation for principal loss
The second trial of Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court held that according to the "Interim Measures for the Administration of Personal Banking Business of Commercial Banks" and the "Guidelines for Risk Management of Personal Banking Business of Commercial Banks", the Bank has a risk-bearing capacity in accordance with the customer's risk relationship in the financial services legal relationship. The obligation to recommend suitable products, such as financial status. Although Mr. Hu signed the confirmation to know the relevant risks, he could not exempt the bank from the assessment and proper promotion obligations before the contract. Mr. Hu is a stable investor with poor risk tolerance. However, the bank violated the principle of “selling the right products to the right investors” and sold the products with relatively high risks to Mr. Hu, so Mr. Hu’s The loss has major faults.
In this case, Mr. Hu should have a corresponding understanding of his financial status, investment ability and risk tolerance. However, he did not make reasonable investment according to his own situation, but chose to purchase the products of the disputed wealth management, and also had the corresponding losses. Corresponding fault, according to the corresponding provisions of the Tort Liability Law, the bank's liability for tort compensation can be reduced accordingly.
Therefore, Mr. Hu’s claim that the bank should compensate for the loss of its principal can be supported, and the claim for compensation for its interest loss is not supported. The second instance changed the bank's compensation for Mr. Hu's total principal loss of more than 180,000 yuan, and rejected the rest of the petition.
Banks should fulfill their obligation to properly assess and properly promote
Jin Cheng, the first-instance judge of the second instance, believes that in this case, the bank did not evaluate Mr. Hu before recommending the wealth management products to Mr. Hu. It is already a mistake; and based on the previous evaluation results of the bank, Mr. Hu is a stable investor and risk-bearing. The ability is weak, generally only hope that there can be value-added income on the basis of guaranteeing the security of the principal, and the wealth management products are non-guaranteed wealth management products. The possibility of a decline in the net value is obviously not suitable for Mr. Hu, but the bank still actively Mr. Hu’s recommendation can be found that the bank’s failure to perform the above-mentioned correct assessment and proper referral obligations has the corresponding fault.
Judge Jin Cheng also pointed out that in the general business conduct, it should indeed follow the principle of the buyer's own responsibility and risk. However, in the legal relationship of financial services, investors and financial institutions have professional unequalities such as professionalism and information volume. As a subject lacking professional knowledge, investors do not of course know which financial products best meet their own needs. In pursuit of maximizing profits, investors often choose financial products that are not suitable.
In order to make up for this inequality, professional financial institutions should be obliged to meet the obligations of financial institutions to initially select wealth management products for investors, so as to avoid unnecessary losses caused by investors due to their lack of professionalism. It can prevent financial institutions from pursuing their own interests, improperly introducing unsuitable investors into the capital market, and profiting from investors' interests.