Many people manage their finances in order to achieve financial preservation and appreciation, and some people entrust others to manage their finances. However, investment is risky and requires careful decision-making; When entrusting others to manage their finances, don't blindly follow the trend, let alone be a "hands-off shopkeeper", and regret it until the liquidation is over.
Recently, the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court) concluded a private entrusted wealth management contract dispute case in accordance with the law, the client entrusted others to manage the money, 950,000 losses of 740,000, and finally the second instance upheld the original judgment, ruling that the trustee should bear 70% of the loss liability and compensate the client for 51 wealth management fundsMore than 80,000 yuan.
Image source network invasion and deletion)
Xiao Dong and Xiao Nan were introduced to each other, and Xiao Nan orally entrusted Xiao Dong to invest and manage money for him, but neither of them made a specific agreement on the investment period, investment content, profit distribution, commission ratio, etc. Subsequently, Xiao Nan transferred a total of 950,000 yuan of investment funds to Xiaodong in two installments. Xiaodong opened an account on an overseas platform in his own name, and used the investment money to buy foreign exchange and invest**. Later, through chatting, Xiao Nan learned that all his money was invested in foreign exchange. Xiao Nan did not ask about the follow-up investment content and financial details. The wealth management account has also been operated by Xiaodong.
During the two-year investment period, Xiaodong paid Xiaonan many times, totaling 20More than 90,000 yuan. But the good times didn't last long, and Xiaodong's investment account on the overseas platform was blown up, and there was nothing left. Excluding the income paid by Xiaodong to Xiao Nan during the investment period, Xiao Nan lost more than 740,000 yuan. Seeing that his money was in vain, Xiao Nan sued Xiao Dong in court and demanded the return of his principal.
After trial, the court of first instance found that although Xiao Nan and Xiao Dong did not sign an agreement, the two parties had constituted a legal relationship of private entrusted financial management. In accordance with the relevant regulations, domestic individuals engaged in foreign exchange trading and other transactions shall go through approval or filing procedures in accordance with the provisions of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange. In addition, according to the Measures for the Administration of Individual Foreign Exchange, "domestic individuals engaged in foreign exchange trading and other transactions shall handle them through domestic financial institutions that have obtained the corresponding business qualifications in accordance with the law." "Obviously, Xiao Dong and Xiao Nan engaged in foreign exchange investment transactions without approval, which violated national laws and regulations, and the contract between the two parties was invalid.
The court of first instance held that:
As an investor, Xiao Nan failed to fulfill the corresponding duty of care and should bear certain fault liability. As the trustee, Xiaodong actually controlled and used the investment account, and the loss was also caused by his operation, so Xiaodong was at fault for the loss of funds. The court of first instance decided that Xiao Dong and Xiao Nan should be liable in accordance with the proportion of %, and Xiao Dong compensated Xiao Nan for 51 of the investment amountMore than 80,000 yuan.
Unconvinced, Xiaodong appealed to the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court.
In the second instance, Xiao Dong argued that in the process of investment, he told Xiao Nan about the relevant investment situation through WeChat chat, payment of income, etc., and had fulfilled the corresponding obligation to inform, and his own operation was not improper, and there was no fault for the final loss result. In the event of investment failure, Xiao Nan, as an investor, should bear his own risks. Xiaodong asked the court to change the verdict.
Xiao Nan argued that Xiao Dong had deceived him about the specific investment income, investment methods and use of the wealth management funds, and that he was directly at fault for the loss and should be liable for compensation.
The Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court held after trial
According to the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Foreign Exchange Administration, foreign exchange investment transactions should be registered in accordance with the regulations of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange. At the same time, China's Civil Code stipulates that after a civil juristic act is invalid, revoked or determined to be ineffective, the property acquired by the actor as a result of the act shall be returned; where it cannot be returned or it is not necessary to do so, compensation shall be made at a discounted price. The party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses suffered thereby; Where all parties are at fault, they shall each bear corresponding responsibility.
That case, Xiao Nan and Xiao DongHow do you bear the amount of investment loss?
Judging from the chat records of the two parties, Xiao Nan is well aware of Xiaodong's foreign exchange investment, but as an investor, even if he is limited by his own professional knowledge and ability, he cannot know too much about the specific details of the investment activities, but he should have the corresponding duty of care for whether the trading activities he is engaged in comply with the laws and regulations of the country, and Xiao Nan should bear certain fault liability for failing to fulfill the corresponding duty of care.
During the period of providing investment and wealth management services, Xiao Dong did not distinguish Xiao Nan's funds from his own funds, nor could he prove the specific circumstances of the investment transactions, and the investment account was actually controlled by Xiao Dong, and the losses were caused by his operation. Xiaodong is at fault for the formation of the loss of account funds. Therefore, the court of first instance considered the degree of fault of both parties, determined the proportion of losses borne by both parties, and ordered Xiaodong to compensate Xiaonan for the investment of 51More than 80,000 yuan, there is nothing improper.
In summary, the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
The names of the persons mentioned in the article have been changed).
What the judge said
Judge Lu Wenfang, the presiding judge of this case, reminded that the private entrusted wealth management contract refers to the client handing over assets to non-financial institutions or natural persons such as asset management companies, with the non-financial institutions or natural persons acting as trustees, and the proceeds are distributed by both parties as agreed. On the premise that the entrusted wealth management contract is valid, the loss of the entrusted wealth management shall be borne by the client. In this case, the parties reached an agreement orally, but the trustee failed to conduct foreign exchange investment transactions in accordance with laws and regulations, so it was determined that the entrusted wealth management contract between the two parties was invalid. In view of the respective responsibilities of both parties, the Trustee shall indemnify the Principal.
We would like to remind investors to invest rationally, correctly understand investment risks, understand investment information, and choose formal, legal, and qualified investment institutions or individuals for financial management.
*: Shanghai No. 1 Middle Court.