In order to preserve and increase the value of wealth, the purchase of wealth management products sold by the bank did not want to lose more than 100,000 yuan. Mr. Hu sued the bank to the court. Recently, the First Intermediate Court concluded the second-instance case of the property damage compensation dispute. It was found that the bank did not comply with the appropriate promotion obligation during the process of selling the wealth management products. There was an infringement fault and the bank was compensated for the loss of all the principal losses of Mr. Hu by more than 180,000.
In March 2011, Mr. Hu subscribed for fund products issued by fund companies sold by banks. When delivering 1 million subscription funds, 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 risk of investment”, and Signature below the Risk Warning Letter on the back of the transaction slip. After
, due to the loss of the fund products, Mr. Hu filed a lawsuit against the bank as the defendant and the fund company for the third party, demanding that the bank be compensated for the 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 type of products suitable for purchase.
The trial court of the 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.
The second trial of the First 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" and other relevant regulations, banks have a risk tolerance according to their customers in the legal relationship of financial services. 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 type of investor with poor risk tolerance, but the bank violates the principle of “selling the right products to the right investors” and sells the relatively high-risk products 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, but he did not make reasonable investment according to his own situation, but chose to purchase the products of the disputed wealth management products, and the corresponding losses occurred. It also has corresponding faults. 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, and rejected the rest of the petition.