Economic Observer reporter Hong XiaotangThere are also investors who sue the distribution channel for buying ** losses.
Recently, a civil judgment was disclosed on the judgment document network, the plaintiff Li Mouwu was over sixty years old, and lost more than 30% in less than 2 years due to the subscription of a public ** product, and sued the agency to the court and demanded to bear the liability for compensation. After two trials of the case, the court rejected the plaintiff's claims.
500,000 losses of more than 30%.
According to the content of the judgment, the plaintiff in the case, Li Mouwu, was born on November 10, 1959. Since January 2020, it has purchased wealth management products from Bank of China Tianjin Hebei Branch. Because his family's house was demolished at that time, there was about 1 million yuan of demolition money, and a total of nearly 1 million yuan of wealth management products were purchased.
Li Mouwu said that he went to the bank counter on June 22, 2021 to say that he needed to redeem the original wealth management product to purchase a new wealth management product, based on the trust of the previous account manager, under the strong request of the new account manager, the new account manager operated the purchase of wealth management products, with a total investment of 500,000 yuan, and the name of the wealth management product was "Ping An Quality Enterprise Mixed A".
It is worth mentioning that in the first instance, Li Mouwu lost 13 when he purchased the wealth management product$820,000 (tentatively calculated until February 24, 2023). However, in the second instance, because it did not redeem the product, the loss was further expanded.
Li Mouwu stated that the wealth management products involved in the case were not redeemed because Li Hongwu's request for help from the account manager was rejected, and the account manager asked Li Hongwu to continue to wait and see, and Li Hongwu was unable to handle it himself. Li Hongwu stated that the actual loss as of May 29, 2023 became 15880,000 yuan. Therefore, in the second instance, Li Mouwu's claim was fixed at 15880,000 yuan no longer changes.
According to the public disclosure, Ping An Premium Enterprise Hybrid started its public offering on June 21, 2021, with the custodian bank Bank of China, and Bank of China as one of its main distribution channels.
This also means that Li Mouwu subscribed on the second day of the ** sale.
According to wind data, Ping An Premium Enterprise Mix was established on July 19, 2021, and as of May 29, 2023, the ** return was -3101%。And as of February 8, 2024, the return of the ** since its inception was -4140%。
The focus of the controversy
According to the judgment, it is found that the focus of the case is whether the Tianjin Hebei Branch of Bank of China, as the first distribution agency, has fulfilled the suitability obligation of investors, whether there are violations during the consignment sale of the product, and whether the plaintiff's investment losses should be compensated.
First, whether the product was purchased by Li Mouwu himself. Li Mouwu said that the time to purchase the ** was June 22, 2021, and the operation ** provided by the Tianjin Hebei Branch was the mobile online banking operation process in July 2023.
In this regard, the Hebei branch said that because Li Mouwu had been purchasing wealth management products at the Tianjin Hebei branch for a long time, he was fully capable of using the Bank of China app, and Li Mouwu had actually carried out many self-operated purchases, and the ** product involved in the case was purchased by Li Mouwu himself, not purchased through the account manager at the bank counter, and each step of the purchase process had a risk reminder in the app, and Li Mouwu was required to write the corresponding text on his mobile phone. Tianjin Hebei Sub-branch provided the purchase operation of the wealth management products involved in the case**, and demonstrated the process of purchasing the wealth management products involved in the case.
Second, whether Li Mouwu, as an investor over 60 years old, conducted a risk assessment.
Tianjin Hebei Branch said that all wealth management and ** products that Li Mouwu can purchase must be within the effective date of its risk assessment level, and if Li Hongwu's risk assessment level is not enough, it is impossible to purchase relevant level wealth management products.
Tianjin Hebei Sub-branch has obtained the level of Li Mouwu in the background, and has been evaluated three times since 2020, and the risk level is balanced. The wealth management products that can be purchased by balanced customers are low, medium-low, and medium**, and the Hebei sub-branch stated that the risk level of the products involved in the case is medium risk.
Tianjin Hebei Branch said that if the staff of the Hebei Branch intended to let Li Mouwu buy wealth management products that exceeded his risk level, he would need to change his risk level, in fact, Li Mouwu's risk level had not changed, and the latest risk assessment was four months different from the purchase of the wealth management products involved in the case.
Li Mouwu stated that he did not conduct a risk assessment when he purchased the wealth management products involved in the case, and Li Mouwu did not know his risk level.
In addition, the non-redemption of the wealth management products involved in Li's case led to a change in the amount of losses. Li Mouwu stated that the reason was that Li Mouwu's request for the account manager to help redeem was refused, and the account manager asked Li Hongwu to continue to wait and see, and Li Hongwu was not able to handle it himself.
In this regard, the Tianjin Hebei Branch argued that Li Mouwu communicated with the staff of the Hebei Branch, and the staff informed him that slight fluctuations were generally normal based on financial common sense, but it was not mandatory that he should not sell them.
The plaintiff's claim was dismissed
During the second instance of this case, none of the parties provided new evidence. The facts ascertained through trial in the second-instance trial are consistent with the facts ascertained in the first-instance judgment, and the Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People's Court confirms the facts ascertained in the first-instance judgment.
The second-instance trial held that, according to the ascertained facts, the wealth management product involved in the case, Li Mouwu, had not yet redeemed, the income from the position had been changing, and the losses claimed by him had not yet actually occurred. At the same time, Li Mouwu did not purchase the wealth management products involved in the case at the business premises of the Hebei Branch, but purchased them through mobile phone online banking, and the relevant product information had been displayed and informed, and Li Mouwu could not provide evidence to prove that the Hebei Branch had improper recommendations, valet operations and other behaviors that led to his purchase of the wealth management products involved in the case, so the first-instance judgment determined that Li Mouwu was involved in the case of independent purchase, which was not improper, and the second-instance judgment upheld it. Li Mouwu's request for the Hebei Branch to bear the liability for compensation on the grounds that the Hebei Branch was at fault for illegal operations has no basis in law, and the first-instance judgment rejecting his claim was not improper, and the second-instance judgment upheld it.
To sum up, Li Mouwu's appeal request cannot be sustained and should be dismissed; The first-instance judgment found that the facts were clear and the law was correctly applied, and should be upheld. In accordance with the provisions of Article 176, Paragraph 1 and Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China", the judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.