Guangfa Bank was sentenced to compensate half of the loss to spend 3.2 million to buy financial management, only 2190 yuan!

Home > Finance

Guangfa Bank was sentenced to compensate half of the loss to spend 3.2 million to buy financial management, only 2190 yuan!

2022-05-15 00:07:56 16 ℃

Ms. Jiao in Beijing invested 3.2 million yuan in Guangfa Bank to buy a "particularly good financial management project", which was almost out of return. In the end, only 2190 yuan was obtained. The court finally judged that Guangfa Bank bears 50%of the liability for compensation.

Ten years ago, Ms. Jiao in Beijing encountered a "flying order" when buying wealth management products at Guangfa Bank. She invested 3.2 million yuan to buy a "particularly good wealth management project", which was almost out of return. In the end payment.

Recently, this "flying order" case has made a substantial solution.

The judgment disclosed by the China Judgment Document Network shows that the second instance judgment of the case landed, and Guo, the original wealth management manager of Guangfa Bank, sold wealth management products to customers such as Ms. Jiao illegally, constituting their job behavior. The corresponding legal consequences were borne by Guangfa Bank. It is judged to bear the liability of 50%of the loss of investment.

01

3.2 million "financial management" drift water

Ms. Jiao is an old customer of the Guangfa Bank Sun Palace Sub -branch. In October 2012, due to the expiration of the deposit, Guo Guo said that "the bank now has a particularly good wealth management project, safe and insurance", and she recommends her purchase. The next day, in the VIP's room, Guo recommended her and another Ms. He to buy the wealth management. In terms of income, the purchase of the product of 3 million to 8 million, 12%in the first year, and 13%in the second year.

In January 2013, Ms. Jiao once again purchased another product through Guo's introduction. Ms. Jiao contributed 1.2 million yuan, agreed that the income was 11%in the first year and 12%in the second year.

According to the contract, investors' ex strokes are paid through the GF Bank account, and the income payment is also returned to the account of Guangfa Bank.

The two models purchased by Ms. Jiao are the private equity products issued by Beijing Daguan Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Great View Fund"). From 2012 to 2013, the company's actual controller Zhong Mouren used the Grand View Fund, etc. As an ordinary partner, the company has signed an agreement with a number of investors to set up more than ten limited partnerships, and then invests in Shanxi Xintian Energy Co., Ltd. and Inner Mongolia Jixiang Coal Industry Co., Ltd. with limited partnerships.

Ms. Jiao invested like a popular "trust" product at the time. The project party and manager provided poor funds. Priority funds could get relatively certain benefits.

At that time, Guo said, "In the future, all the funds and funds will be promoted by me."

In November 2013, the project invested by Ms. Jiao expired, and Guo Guo, a financial manager, said that there was a problem with the payment. It is expected to return to interest in three months.

Because the Great View Fund does not have the qualification to raise funds, issue loans and securities investment products, the company's actual controller Zhong Mouren was sentenced to imprisonment in July 2016 in July 2016. The company's funds were trapped in trouble, and Ms. Jiao could not pay for the principal and income of investing in the wealth management product, causing actual losses.

02

Many banks involve it

It is worth noting that the victims of the "flying order" case of the bank's wealth management mentioned above are not only Ms. Jiao.

The private equity products of the Grand View Fund are mainly through Pinglin Bank (14.610, 0.23, 1.60%), Minsheng Bank (3.710, 0.04, 1.09%), Huaxia Bank (5.310, 0.05, 0.95%), Guangfa Bank (4.470, 0.03 , 0.68%) The wealth management managers of banks such as banks privately were promoted to customers privately, and promised to repay the principal and interest (recognition of 11%to 15%of the annual income of 11%to 15%), and illegally absorb more than 200 investors' funds for a total of RMB 5 More than 100 million yuan.

Zhong Mouren said that some of the funds raised were invested on these two projects, and some returned the customer principal and interest. The company has returned the principal and plus interest of about 400 million yuan, and there are 150 million yuan. Multiple investment customers failed to solve it.

The court mentioned that including Ping An Bank, Huaxia Bank, Guangfa Bank and other sub -branch financial managers testified that the facts of the above -mentioned products of the sales of the Grand View Fund, some financial managers received commissions from the Grand View Fund.

Zhong Mouren introduced that the bank wealth management manager's private bank wealth management manager helped to find customers. The company pulled 3%of the total investment of the customer's investment to the bank according to each bank. Zhong Mouren said, "We all look for some commercial banks, such as Huaxia Bank, Minsheng Bank, and Guangfa Bank, because these banks are relatively loose in the system, plus our wealth management manager to the bank."

The staff of the Grand View Fund also confirmed the commission, saying that he contacted Guo Guo, the financial manager of Guangfa Bank, and sold a total of about 5 million yuan. " , A total of 100,000 yuan. " Guo said that it is unclear whether the Grand View Fund and Guangfa Bank have cooperated. I do n’t know the financial fund product bank introduced to the customer at the bank to the customer. It is a personal behavior.

03

Guangfa Bank was sentenced to half of the responsibility

Ms. Jiao made a claim to the court because she had previously invested 3.2 million yuan. Facing the investor's claims, the Guangfa Bank Sun Palace Sub -branch did not accept it. It believes that the bank's non -sales -involved investment products do not have an agency relationship with the Grand View Fund; Guo's private sale is personal behavior, not a job, and banks should not bear responsibility.

According to the bank, before the case, Guangfa Bank attached great importance to preventing such "flying orders" incidents. In the employee's employment rules, it clearly stipulated that employees were strictly prohibited from participating in illegal fundraising activities and clearly listed private sale behaviors as violations of discipline. The system, organize Guangong study and conduct inspections, inspections and special supervision.

Regarding Guo's private sales behavior, the bank said that it had exceeded its own scope and management capabilities, and believed that all measures such as the establishment of rules, compulsory training, supervision and management have been exhausted. "It is impossible for banks to monitor each employee's behavior at all times. It is impossible to monitor every movement and monitor every speech of all employees."

In response to Ms. Jiao's investment behavior, Guangfa Bank believes that it has financial investment experience, understand the content of the text, and the expected return of legal documents such as the purchase process, contracts and other legal documents, etc., and has the ability to notice that the "flying" products involved in the case are not bank wealth management products. It is a private equity investment product, and it should also bear the necessary risk attention obligations.

The court of first instance pointed out that when Guo, an employee of the Guangfa Bank Sun Palace Sub -branch, when the sales behavior was implemented, based on the identity of its bank staff, the sales time was during the execution of the duties. For investors who are unfamiliar with bank management regulations, there is no way to judge that Guo is not performing his duties. Therefore, Guo's illegal and private sale constitution constitutes a job, and the corresponding legal consequences shall be borne by the bank.

Regarding whether Guo's promotional behavior constitutes infringement, the court pointed out that bank staff knows that the products they sell are not their consignment wealth management products, and the business scope of the Great Viewing Fund also clearly shows that the company cannot raise funds in public. In this case, bank staff still promoted and sold to customers, promoted high returns, and obtained a return point. Therefore, there is a fault in its behavior, and the promotion behavior constitutes infringement.

Because bank staff illegally promoted investors with high -risk and non -buds issued and sold for wealth management products, and did not fulfill their obligations of security, there was a certain degree of fault in investment losses, and corresponding infringement liability should be assumed. At the same time, Ms. Jiao's one -sided pursuit of high interest rates during the transaction and lack of awareness of risk prevention of her own funds is also the reason for the loss involved in the case.

In view of the faults of the two parties, the court of first instance analyzed the fault of the fault and the result of the damage of the two parties. responsibility.

After the first trial, the Guangfa Bank Sun Palace Sub -branch appealed to the Third Intermediate Court of Beijing, but its appeal request was rejected and the original sentence was maintained.

In the end, the Guangfa Bank Sun Palace Sub -branch was sentenced to compensate Ms. Jiao 1.599 million yuan and related interest losses.