Think about the problem: If what Manager Sun said is true, he really used the bank employee to carry out the agency sales behavior for the purpose of earning commission returns. There were fictitious facts and exaggerated returns during the agency sales process. After the financial products burst, they tried every means, including lying again and fabricating facts repeatedly, objectively gaining time for the financial company. From common sense? Is this business fraud?
Statement: The following article records a financial management story. Forward the full text. The red font is for my comments and or I find bizarre details. Non-key places can be skipped quickly. This article is not a professional legal article, and it is all personal opinions. Please correct me if there are any mistakes. Thank you!
Original source screenshot:
Title: The lobby manager recommended "internal products" and lost all his money. The court sentenced the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch to compensate 70%
2022-11-09 17:07:10 Source: China.com Shandong Channel
In June 2020, Ms. Qin listened to Manager Sun's persuasion and purchased 660,000 yuan of "high-yield, 0-risk Agricultural Bank internal products", and finally ended up "losing all your money"...
Ms. Qin, 61 years old this year, has been handling financial business at the Suihua Beilin Branch of the Agricultural Bank of China. Most of the time, she was received by Manager Sun, a lobby manager born in the 1970s.
In June 2020, Ms. Qin listened to Manager Sun's persuasion and purchased "high-yield and 0-risk agricultural bank internal products" of 660,000 yuan, and finally ended up "losing all the money"...
01
lobby manager recommended "internal products"
In June 2020, Ms. Qin went to the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch to handle business.
Previously, Ms. Qin, under the recommendation of Manager Sun, the lobby manager of the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch, bought the Agricultural Bank of China financial products ( investment risk is lower) just redeemed. So on this day, Ms. Qin rushed to the bank to handle related business, and Manager Sun was still the one who came to receive her.
This time, , Manager Sun still recommended a financial product to Ms. Qin and introduced that has a high return rate and is an internal financial product of the Agricultural Bank of China. It is safe and reliable and has no investment risks. (Beware that these so-called high-yield financial products may be mortgaged on certain unfinished real estate projects, packaged by non-bank financial institutions, and promoted by bank staff. Also remember that the time is June 2020, and the results will be announced one year later in June 2021)
In order to make Ms. Qin decide to buy the "internal products" she recommended, Manager Sun also moved out her own president and colleagues to endorse the product . It is said that colleagues, relatives, including the president, have purchased this financial product. (Really fake? Is there any false publicity here? The article does not mention it)
Hearing Manager Sun introducing this product with confidence, and recalling that the financial products she recommended to herself had been safely redeemed to the account. Ms. Qin was finally moved and agreed to buy it.
Manager Sun also said that this is an internal product of the bank and cannot be processed at the window, but can only be operated on the mobile phone. Because Ms. Qin is old and has limited ability to operate smartphones, Manager Sun finally operates the phone instead of herself. After some proficient operation, Manager Sun successfully purchased this "internal product" for Ms. Qin with an investment of 300,000 yuan.
Two months later, Ms. Qin came to the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch again to handle business. Manager Sun received her and recommended the Agricultural Bank of China's "internal products". This time, Manager Sun operated Ms. Qin's mobile phone and invested 360,000 "internal products" for her.
counted twice before and after, and Manager Sun purchased a total of 660,000 yuan of "internal products" for Ms. Qin.
The product without risk is overdue
Time flies, and it is June of the second year. At this time, Ms. Qin's first one-year "internal product" expired, and she wanted to redeem the investment money. , but unexpectedly, Ms. Qin could not get back her money. (actually, the financial management product has exploded, and the product has expired. When it is time to get the money, you will not be given principal or interest. Think about the problem: If what Manager Sun said is true, he really used the bank employee to carry out the agency sales behavior for the purpose of earning commission returns. There were fictitious facts and exaggerated returns during the agency sales process. After the financial products burst, they tried every means, including lying again and fabricating facts repeatedly, objectively gaining time for the financial company. From common sense? Is this business fraud? Statement: The following article records a financial management story. Forward the full text. The red font is for my comments and or I find bizarre details. Non-key places can be skipped quickly. This article is not a professional legal article, and it is all personal opinions. Please correct me if there are any mistakes. Thank you! Original source screenshot: 2022-11-09 17:07:10 Source: China.com Shandong Channel In June 2020, Ms. Qin listened to Manager Sun's persuasion and purchased 660,000 yuan of "high-yield, 0-risk Agricultural Bank internal products", and finally ended up "losing all your money"... Ms. Qin, 61 years old this year, has been handling financial business at the Suihua Beilin Branch of the Agricultural Bank of China. Most of the time, she was received by Manager Sun, a lobby manager born in the 1970s. In June 2020, Ms. Qin listened to Manager Sun's persuasion and purchased "high-yield and 0-risk agricultural bank internal products" of 660,000 yuan, and finally ended up "losing all the money"... 01 lobby manager recommended "internal products" In June 2020, Ms. Qin went to the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch to handle business. Previously, Ms. Qin, under the recommendation of Manager Sun, the lobby manager of the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch, bought the Agricultural Bank of China financial products ( investment risk is lower) just redeemed. So on this day, Ms. Qin rushed to the bank to handle related business, and Manager Sun was still the one who came to receive her. This time, , Manager Sun still recommended a financial product to Ms. Qin and introduced that has a high return rate and is an internal financial product of the Agricultural Bank of China. It is safe and reliable and has no investment risks. (Beware that these so-called high-yield financial products may be mortgaged on certain unfinished real estate projects, packaged by non-bank financial institutions, and promoted by bank staff. Also remember that the time is June 2020, and the results will be announced one year later in June 2021) In order to make Ms. Qin decide to buy the "internal products" she recommended, Manager Sun also moved out her own president and colleagues to endorse the product . It is said that colleagues, relatives, including the president, have purchased this financial product. (Really fake? Is there any false publicity here? The article does not mention it) Hearing Manager Sun introducing this product with confidence, and recalling that the financial products she recommended to herself had been safely redeemed to the account. Ms. Qin was finally moved and agreed to buy it. Manager Sun also said that this is an internal product of the bank and cannot be processed at the window, but can only be operated on the mobile phone. Because Ms. Qin is old and has limited ability to operate smartphones, Manager Sun finally operates the phone instead of herself. After some proficient operation, Manager Sun successfully purchased this "internal product" for Ms. Qin with an investment of 300,000 yuan. Two months later, Ms. Qin came to the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch again to handle business. Manager Sun received her and recommended the Agricultural Bank of China's "internal products". This time, Manager Sun operated Ms. Qin's mobile phone and invested 360,000 "internal products" for her. counted twice before and after, and Manager Sun purchased a total of 660,000 yuan of "internal products" for Ms. Qin. The product without risk is overdue Time flies, and it is June of the second year. At this time, Ms. Qin's first one-year "internal product" expired, and she wanted to redeem the investment money. , but unexpectedly, Ms. Qin could not get back her money. (actually, the financial management product has exploded, and the product has expired. When it is time to get the money, you will not be given principal or interest.The product issuer (financial management company) can only give it to you later - there is no saying that you will not give it. When will I give it, there is no timetable. We should be very careful when buying this type of financial product! Such financial products may not legally constitute so-called commercial fraud by adopting false propaganda measures to illegally possess property. I think in the specific circumstances of this case, the boundaries between business fraud and financial management breach are actually very blurred. Is it true to give it to you later? Or are you really not giving it to the point of being delayed? ) Hundreds of thousands of dollars are not a small amount for an ordinary family. The "internal product" failed to be redeemed when it expired. Ms. Qin was anxious and hurriedly found Manager Sun to ask why. Manager Sun told her that her investment funds were not received because the state was checking the accounts of major banks, and the investment money was deducted to the bank and it would take several days to arrive. (Are there any fictitious facts and lies here? Is there any? If so, according to common sense of ordinary people, Manager Sun will definitely be suspected of "fraud". However, the court and the police did not explain the actual situation. This is a fog and bizarre detail) In order to appease Ms. Qin, Manager Sun said that the money is indeed in the bank, and there is absolutely no problem, and the principal and interest will be collected at that time. (According to the facts of the investigation, the money was indeed not in the bank, so there was definitely a problem. So Manager Sun was definitely "frauding" and was fabricating facts to cover up the fact of financial management breach) In order to reassure Ms. Qin, Manager Sun did not forget to bring out her own president again, saying that the president also bought 500,000 yuan. The money will arrive at the latest at the end of September. However, seeing Ms. Qin's investment funds reaching a long time ago, Manager Sun also knew that the paper could not be kept popular. So, Manager Sun confessed the truth to Ms. Qin, saying that the reason why she recommended products to Ms. Qin was assigned by "Governor Yu" from the Suihua Beilin Branch of the Agricultural Bank of China. Manager Sun also sent Ms. Qin a screenshot of her WeChat chat with "Governor Yu", saying that "Governor Yu" set her a arduous assessment task of 2 million yuan for this "internal product". (By throwing the blame on "Governor Yu", indicating that he is a pawn. Reducing his responsibilities, the following text does not explain the role of President Yu in the breach of contract. If President Yu did not participate, the screenshot is also fake. Manager Sun is "liking" again and slandering and slandering "Governor Yu" for suspected defamation . But if it is true, "Governor Yu" is equivalent to acting as his superior in the financial management company - the superiors are suppressing tasks for subordinates. According to this, Manager Sun will definitely have the nature of "dual duty behavior" in the whole matter) "internal products" that are not internal From the later results, these so-called "internal financial products" of the Agricultural Bank are not bank products at all, and the products themselves are not internal to the bank. For example, Ms. Qin spent 300,000 yuan to buy the first "internal product", the money was actually transferred by Manager Sun to an account called Beijing Shenfa China Merchants Bank Asset Management Co., Ltd. using her mobile phone. Ms. Qin handled a non-financial institution entrusted financial management product. The underlying asset is accounts receivable project in a residential community in Chengdu. (a real estate sub-mortgage bond. Simply put, it is the kind of bond that ordinary financial institutions will not buy despite the high interest rate.) The "internal product" purchased by Ms. Qin spent 360,000 yuan for the second time, and it is also a entrusted financial management product of non-financial institutions. The money was transferred to the account of Beijing Shurong Internet Asset Management Co., Ltd., and the underlying assets are a project in Foshan, Guangdong. (or another real estate sub-mortgage bond) When handling these businesses, neither the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch nor the Manager Sun himself provided Ms. Qin with any form of written contract. However, after a long time, Manager Sun handed Ms. Qin a contract text without any signature on Party C (subscriber). In other words, the "internal products" of the Agricultural Bank of China purchased by Ms. Qin through Ms. Qin's mobile phone in the business hall of the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch was actually a part-time job she and "Governor Yu" took from other financial companies (with commission rewards).To put it bluntly, it is "private work". What Manager Sun calls her "Governor Yu" who has assigned her is actually no longer a "Governor". On October 24, 2013, "Governor Yu" was indeed appointed as the president of the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch, but on December 22, 2016, "Governor Yu" was dismissed from the position of president. When the incident occurred, "Governor Yu" was just an ordinary employee of the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch who was demoted. (The mist suspicion reappears! What is the relationship between President Yu and Manager Sun who have been dismissed? Is it a private employment relationship or it doesn't matter? Is it sure? The police and the court are very clear about it, but the article did not specifically clarify this fact. It makes people feel a lot of imagination here) Investigation and accountability by the regulatory department Among the clients of the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch, Ms. Qin is not "lonely", because there are many people who have the same experience as her. These people were recommended to buy the Agricultural Bank's "internal products" by Manager Sun on the excuse that "the Internal products of the Agricultural Bank of China, the high interest rate of is high, the security and risk-free, and their relatives and the president have bought them." However, after the expiration, they did not get the investment money. After the incident, in order to protect its legitimate rights and interests, these financial consumers represented by Ms. Qin filed a complaint with the financial regulatory authorities. In February this year, the Suihua Supervision Branch of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission issued an investigation opinion. It pointed out that from June 2020 to November 2020, Manager Sun, the former lobby manager of the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch, illegally promoted and sold third-party company financial products sold by non-agricultural banks to financial consumers. The purchase method was to transfer money to third-party companies through consumer mobile phones. Suihua Supervision Branch emphasized that the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch has problems such as inadequate inspection of employee behavior and no abnormal behavior of employees was found. The branch has filed an investigation against it with administrative penalties and will take corresponding regulatory measures against institutions and relevant personnel in accordance with the law. In addition, Ms. Qin and other victims also sought help from the media. At the scene of an authoritative media program, President Qi, the direct leader of the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch, said that they will bear joint and several liability. Later, Governor Qi found Ms. Qin and others, who admitted that the bank had omissions, shortcomings and deficiencies in management, but was unable to directly fulfill the compensation liability to them. He suggested that Ms. Qin seek judicial solutions. After having legal documents, the bank will pay the full amount immediately according to the judgment. In Ms. Qin's opinion, she is based on her trust in the Agricultural Bank of China, and Manager Sun is an employee of the bank for many years. She has been helping her with business before, but no similar situation has happened. Now, Manager Sun and the Agricultural Bank of China have failed their trust. She believes that Manager Sun's behavior is a professional behavior, and the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch should compensate her for 660,000 yuan. So, Ms. Qin sued the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch. Responsibility determination of three to seven Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch argued during the trial that Manager Sun's behavior was a private act, not a professional act. Although Ms. Qin advocated that Manager Sun used the identity of a bank employee when selling financial products privately, the employee identity was just a fake appearance for the smooth implementation of private sales. In fact, Manager Sun did not sign the contract as a bank employee. The private sale is tempted by the return of commissions, and the benefits obtained are not owned by the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch. The bank also put forward multiple arguments, and ultimately believed that it was not at fault and should not bear responsibility. Manager Sun also said that it was a personal behavior to recommend the financial products involved in the case to Ms. Qin, and it did not represent the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch, but his part-time agency behavior. Manager Sun also believes that Ms. Qin has caused economic risks due to investing in non-agricultural bank financial products and should claim rights from the financial management company. (The biggest controversy in this article appears! Manager Sun insists that his behavior is a "part-time agency behavior" rather than a "fraud". Is it actually considered a fraud? I believe everyone has a psychological reputation. Looking back on a scene on the street - a serious salesperson dressed up and selling so-called high-interest financial products to passers-by with sweet words - the financial products they sold on behalf of them burst after the expiration, but the financial management company did not run away with money.I never said I would not pay back the money, but said I would pay it back in the future. Is their (salesmen) a fraud? What if these people are "lucky" to be hired by the bank and sell them in another place? ) On October 27 this year, the first-instance judgment on the financial management dispute between Ms. Qin and the Agricultural Bank of China was announced on the Judgment Documents. Court trial held that Manager Sun was the lobby manager of the Agricultural Bank's business department and had the job responsibilities of recommending the financial products in the bank's business to customers and making offers or commitments for the representative units. Secondly, recommendations, offers and commitments occur during the working hours and workplace of the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch. In addition, Manager Sun told the client that the financial products were internal products of the Agricultural Bank of China and did not tell the client that the recommendations or offers did not represent the bank where he worked, and that his actions were carried out in the name or identity of the operator. Therefore, Manager Sun's behavior is a position behavior. ( I personally think that the court’s determination of the facts is not completely accurate! In fact, a discerning person can see at a glance that Manager Sun also formed an employment relationship with the financial management company - he took the commission, right? So he has a "dual position behavior". The bank does have inadequate supervision in the whole thing, but this has no causal connection with the default of financial management products. The causal connection is the financial management company! Therefore, the financial management company should bear more responsibilities than the bank . Now we avoid talking about financial management companies. Responsibility, the financial management company has nothing to do but asks the bank to lose money. Isn’t it strange? Is it a financial management news? ) Ms. Qin went to the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch to handle financial management business . When a staff member Manager Sun recommended the product to her, he made an explanation of "internal products, high returns, safe and risk-free, and the bank staff (including the president) and relatives purchased the product", and directly operated the other party’s mobile phone to sign a contract with asset management company and transferred the investment funds. As a result, Ms. Qin and the Agricultural Bank did not establish a financial entrusted financial management contract trusted by Ms. Qin, but formed a non-intentional private entrusted financial management contract relationship with the asset management company involved in the case. (Here, Manager Sun's "dual duty behavior" actually recognized it, but the court did not want the asset management company to come forward to pay compensation. This may involve such a situation. The asset management company (financial management company) may have gone bankrupt, so there is no need to pay compensation. However, the article did not explain. But if, I mean, if it is on the road to bankruptcy, because there are underlying assets as collateral for asset liquidation, the holder of the financial product does not fail to get a penny. The bank may be dissatisfied and appealed, demanding that the amount of compensation be reduced (it was mentioned later that the bank would have to pay 70% of the compensation), and the matter should be handled. As the direct fault party, the Finance Company liquidates the underlying assets of the collateral to repay part of the financial management principal. The specific process of the Financial Management Company liquidates the underlying assets of the collateral to repay the contents of the financial management company is a bit complicated. It needs to be re-evaluated, publicized, and auctioned. The process is very long and cumbersome. If it develops to that situation, it will take a long time. If Ms. Qin really gets the real money and silver money, it may have to wait a lot of time.) Therefore, the losses caused to Ms. Qin's property were caused to Ms. Qin's property, the court held that the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch, the other party, should bear the liability for negligence of contracting Title: The lobby manager recommended "internal products" and lost all his money. The court sentenced the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch to compensate 70%
The court also pointed out that the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch failed to fulfill its obligations such as understanding customers, understanding products, and risk notification instructions in providing Ms. Qin with high-risk investment activities, which violated the obligation of appropriateness. Manager Sun, a business staff member, used his position to solicit customers for private financial institutions outside the bank, made risks and signed contracts illegally, indicating that the Agricultural Bank of China has not fulfilled its regulatory obligations, and his claim that it is contrary to the law and is inconsistent with the rationale.
Finally, the court ruled that the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch bear 70% of the compensation liability for Ms. Qin's losses, that is, compensation of 462,000 yuan to Ms. Qin. Ms. Qin bears 30% of the responsibility for not fulfilling her necessary care obligations.
In other words, Ms. Qin invested only 762,000 yuan in the end. (Source: Technology Finance Online )
(I feel that financial management companies are passers-by in the whole article, and the issuance of financial management is storm. What is the result of this biggest fault party handling? I don’t know, it’s interesting. The lesson summarized is: Not everyone is so lucky to close the case quickly. There are many complicated legal relationships and evidence collection. It’s a cumbersome process. And it’s still during the epidemic, and it’s even more annoying to sue, so you have to be very careful when buying financial products in recent years!)
To put it bluntly, it is "private work".What Manager Sun calls her "Governor Yu" who has assigned her is actually no longer a "Governor".
On October 24, 2013, "Governor Yu" was indeed appointed as the president of the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch, but on December 22, 2016, "Governor Yu" was dismissed from the position of president. When the incident occurred, "Governor Yu" was just an ordinary employee of the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch who was demoted. (The mist suspicion reappears! What is the relationship between President Yu and Manager Sun who have been dismissed? Is it a private employment relationship or it doesn't matter? Is it sure? The police and the court are very clear about it, but the article did not specifically clarify this fact. It makes people feel a lot of imagination here)
Investigation and accountability by the regulatory department
Among the clients of the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch, Ms. Qin is not "lonely", because there are many people who have the same experience as her. These people were recommended to buy the Agricultural Bank's "internal products" by Manager Sun on the excuse that "the Internal products of the Agricultural Bank of China, the high interest rate of is high, the security and risk-free, and their relatives and the president have bought them." However, after the expiration, they did not get the investment money. After the incident, in order to protect its legitimate rights and interests, these financial consumers represented by Ms. Qin filed a complaint with the financial regulatory authorities.
In February this year, the Suihua Supervision Branch of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission issued an investigation opinion. It pointed out that from June 2020 to November 2020, Manager Sun, the former lobby manager of the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch, illegally promoted and sold third-party company financial products sold by non-agricultural banks to financial consumers. The purchase method was to transfer money to third-party companies through consumer mobile phones.
Suihua Supervision Branch emphasized that the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch has problems such as inadequate inspection of employee behavior and no abnormal behavior of employees was found. The branch has filed an investigation against it with administrative penalties and will take corresponding regulatory measures against institutions and relevant personnel in accordance with the law.
In addition, Ms. Qin and other victims also sought help from the media. At the scene of an authoritative media program, President Qi, the direct leader of the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch, said that they will bear joint and several liability.
Later, Governor Qi found Ms. Qin and others, who admitted that the bank had omissions, shortcomings and deficiencies in management, but was unable to directly fulfill the compensation liability to them. He suggested that Ms. Qin seek judicial solutions. After having legal documents, the bank will pay the full amount immediately according to the judgment.
In Ms. Qin's opinion, she is based on her trust in the Agricultural Bank of China, and Manager Sun is an employee of the bank for many years. She has been helping her with business before, but no similar situation has happened. Now, Manager Sun and the Agricultural Bank of China have failed their trust. She believes that Manager Sun's behavior is a professional behavior, and the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch should compensate her for 660,000 yuan.
So, Ms. Qin sued the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch.
Responsibility determination of three to seven
Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch argued during the trial that Manager Sun's behavior was a private act, not a professional act. Although Ms. Qin advocated that Manager Sun used the identity of a bank employee when selling financial products privately, the employee identity was just a fake appearance for the smooth implementation of private sales. In fact, Manager Sun did not sign the contract as a bank employee. The private sale is tempted by the return of commissions, and the benefits obtained are not owned by the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch.
The bank also put forward multiple arguments, and ultimately believed that it was not at fault and should not bear responsibility.
Manager Sun also said that it was a personal behavior to recommend the financial products involved in the case to Ms. Qin, and it did not represent the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch, but his part-time agency behavior. Manager Sun also believes that Ms. Qin has caused economic risks due to investing in non-agricultural bank financial products and should claim rights from the financial management company. (The biggest controversy in this article appears! Manager Sun insists that his behavior is a "part-time agency behavior" rather than a "fraud". Is it actually considered a fraud? I believe everyone has a psychological reputation. Looking back on a scene on the street - a serious salesperson dressed up and selling so-called high-interest financial products to passers-by with sweet words - the financial products they sold on behalf of them burst after the expiration, but the financial management company did not run away with money.I never said I would not pay back the money, but said I would pay it back in the future. Is their (salesmen) a fraud? What if these people are "lucky" to be hired by the bank and sell them in another place? )
On October 27 this year, the first-instance judgment on the financial management dispute between Ms. Qin and the Agricultural Bank of China was announced on the Judgment Documents.
Court trial held that Manager Sun was the lobby manager of the Agricultural Bank's business department and had the job responsibilities of recommending the financial products in the bank's business to customers and making offers or commitments for the representative units. Secondly, recommendations, offers and commitments occur during the working hours and workplace of the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch. In addition, Manager Sun told the client that the financial products were internal products of the Agricultural Bank of China and did not tell the client that the recommendations or offers did not represent the bank where he worked, and that his actions were carried out in the name or identity of the operator. Therefore, Manager Sun's behavior is a position behavior.
( I personally think that the court’s determination of the facts is not completely accurate! In fact, a discerning person can see at a glance that Manager Sun also formed an employment relationship with the financial management company - he took the commission, right? So he has a "dual position behavior". The bank does have inadequate supervision in the whole thing, but this has no causal connection with the default of financial management products. The causal connection is the financial management company! Therefore, the financial management company should bear more responsibilities than the bank . Now we avoid talking about financial management companies. Responsibility, the financial management company has nothing to do but asks the bank to lose money. Isn’t it strange? Is it a financial management news? )
Ms. Qin went to the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch to handle financial management business . When a staff member Manager Sun recommended the product to her, he made an explanation of "internal products, high returns, safe and risk-free, and the bank staff (including the president) and relatives purchased the product", and directly operated the other party’s mobile phone to sign a contract with asset management company and transferred the investment funds. As a result, Ms. Qin and the Agricultural Bank did not establish a financial entrusted financial management contract trusted by Ms. Qin, but formed a non-intentional private entrusted financial management contract relationship with the asset management company involved in the case. (Here, Manager Sun's "dual duty behavior" actually recognized it, but the court did not want the asset management company to come forward to pay compensation. This may involve such a situation. The asset management company (financial management company) may have gone bankrupt, so there is no need to pay compensation. However, the article did not explain.
But if, I mean, if it is on the road to bankruptcy, because there are underlying assets as collateral for asset liquidation, the holder of the financial product does not fail to get a penny. The bank may be dissatisfied and appealed, demanding that the amount of compensation be reduced (it was mentioned later that the bank would have to pay 70% of the compensation), and the matter should be handled. As the direct fault party, the Finance Company liquidates the underlying assets of the collateral to repay part of the financial management principal.
The specific process of the Financial Management Company liquidates the underlying assets of the collateral to repay the contents of the financial management company is a bit complicated. It needs to be re-evaluated, publicized, and auctioned. The process is very long and cumbersome. If it develops to that situation, it will take a long time. If Ms. Qin really gets the real money and silver money, it may have to wait a lot of time.)
Therefore, the losses caused to Ms. Qin's property were caused to Ms. Qin's property, the court held that the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch, the other party, should bear the liability for negligence of contracting . (I can't understand here. Are there any legal experts to explain: Is it reasonable to bear 70% of the compensation liability for losses only if it is a contractual negligence liability but it is only a contractual negligence liability. Isn't it reasonable? How much responsibility should the financial management company that directly bears the financial breach of contract liability be paid?)
The court also pointed out that the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch failed to fulfill its obligations such as understanding customers, understanding products, and risk notification instructions in providing Ms. Qin with high-risk investment activities, which violated the obligation of appropriateness. Manager Sun, a business staff member, used his position to solicit customers for private financial institutions outside the bank, made risks and signed contracts illegally, indicating that the Agricultural Bank of China has not fulfilled its regulatory obligations, and his claim that it is contrary to the law and is inconsistent with the rationale.
Finally, the court ruled that the Agricultural Bank of China Suihua Beilin Branch bear 70% of the compensation liability for Ms. Qin's losses, that is, compensation of 462,000 yuan to Ms. Qin. Ms. Qin bears 30% of the responsibility for not fulfilling her necessary care obligations.
In other words, Ms. Qin invested only 762,000 yuan in the end. (Source: Technology Finance Online )
(I feel that financial management companies are passers-by in the whole article, and the issuance of financial management is storm. What is the result of this biggest fault party handling? I don’t know, it’s interesting. The lesson summarized is: Not everyone is so lucky to close the case quickly. There are many complicated legal relationships and evidence collection. It’s a cumbersome process. And it’s still during the epidemic, and it’s even more annoying to sue, so you have to be very careful when buying financial products in recent years!)
