August 14 Japan should be the expiration date of the 500 million yuan Daye Trust Junrui 15 (Jiutong Foundation) project collective fund trust plan entrusted by China Merchants Bank, but the investors have not yet received a clear redemption plan, which has constituted a substantial breach of contract.

This is the news that natural person investors have defaulted for the first time, saying that trust default is nothing new, but this time it is undoubtedly the most influential non-standard default-involving financiers, issuers and consignment parties, especially China Merchants Bank, which has always been called "the king of consignment" in the industry. ......

In this default, the bank said that it would default due to market risk, and naturally it would not choose just exchange. This kind of rhetoric is inevitably far-fetched for investors, because when many investors buy products, banks use their brand advantages to promote packaged trust products to private customers, and imply that banks issue, endorse and cover their pockets.

Customers also ignored the risks of the project itself out of trust in the bank and subscribed for projects that did not match their risk tolerance. To put it more bluntly, put on pants and deny people after having fun.

Love rat has it every year, especially this year. China Merchants Bank is not the only one who refuses to accept pants. Recently, Ping An Bank's consignment of Shaanxi Guotou Trust Project was trampled, but investors have been waiting and have not received any reply.

Ping An Bank: We are not liable for breach of contract.

It is understood that in recent years, many trust companies have issued a large number of "perpetual trusts" in order to evade supervision. At present, Shaanxi Guotou Trust, a happy "permanent trust" product in China, should be the first overdue "permanent trust" in the industry.

According to the trust product report, the trust funds are used for the raw material procurement, operation and maintenance of Jiutong Foundation Investment Co., Ltd. (Huaxia Happiness Subsidiary "Jiutong Foundation"), and the actual maturity date of the third trust plan purchased by Tian Jie is 202 1 year 1 month 18.

According to the investor, on June 5438+ 10/2, he consulted his wealth management manager to see if the trust product was being extended, and the answer was "No extension, the product will repay the principal and interest"; However, on June 5438+1October19th, the wealth management manager informed that "the money is gone, and Huaxia Happiness has defaulted".

It can be known from the temporary information disclosure documents published by Shaanxi Guotou Trust that the principal and interest of the 65438th +0-3 installment of Jiutong Foundation's perpetual debt project have been overdue and the extension has not been notified.

According to the document, Jiutong Foundation interpreted it as "affected by the epidemic, especially the recent outbreak in Hebei, which affected the repayment fund arrangement".

In addition, investors have personally asked Ping An Bank, the custodian bank of trust products, and Shaanxi Guotou, the trustee, about the overdue situation, but Ping An Bank replied that as a consignment bank, it would not be liable for breach of contract.

With the introduction of new regulations on asset management, the asset management industry has changed from an invisible exchange to a broken exchange, and the concept of "the buyer bears the risk" is gradually taking shape in the market. But does this really mean that Ping An Bank is not at fault? Not exactly.

The premise of "buyer's conceit" is "seller's due diligence", and the manager has earnestly performed the entrusted management duties in accordance with the principles of honesty, credit and diligence. If the relevant institutions fail to perform their duties, both institutions and managers may be liable for compensation to investors.

High income induces customers to buy wealth management.

Ping An Bank has a case of seller's due diligence. 2065438+From May to June, 2005, Yang, a high-net-worth customer, purchased wealth management products through Ping An Bank Shenyang Branch. After bank evaluation, Yang's risk level is balanced.

Subsequently, under the recommendation of the bank, Yang purchased Hutchison No.2 Fund with a price of10/0000 yuan, Dacheng Ruijing Hybrid A Fund with a price of 10000 yuan, Xingshi No.7 Private Equity Fund with a price of1kloc-0/0000 yuan and a structured wealth management product. Although some products have achieved profitability, the He Ju No.2 Fund purchased has lost 20% in four years, with a loss of more than 200,000 yuan. Subsequently, Yang took Ping An Bank Shenyang Branch to court.

Yang claimed that Ping An Bank Shenyang Branch recommended wealth management products with risk rating exceeding its risk tolerance level, which violated the obligation of appropriateness, and failed to fulfill the obligation of risk notification in the sales process, and should compensate the principal and interest losses of the wealth management products it purchased.

The court held through trial that the time when Yang bought the above-mentioned wealth management products in the bank was 2065438+May and June, 2005, and the above-mentioned materials provided by the bank were all documents with rich text content and strong professional language, and were standard documents, which ordinary people could not understand or fully understand without detailed information and explanations.

Among them, there is the induction of high return in product promotion. Therefore, the court held that the bank did not follow the principle of risk matching when promoting the wealth management products involved, and there were defects in fulfilling the obligation of appropriateness, which had a causal relationship with Yang's losses and should be liable for compensation.

The court finally ruled that Ping An Bank Shenyang Branch compensated Yang for 65% of the loss of interest on the investment principal, and compensated Yang for the loss of principal 162473.95 yuan and the loss of interest on the funds occupied from the redemption date to the payment date.

Coincidentally, the once sensational "huge compensation case of Ping An Bank's consignment fund" finally ruled that the seller should do part of the responsibility. Sun is a customer of Ping 'an Bank, and began to buy wealth management products from 20 14.

Evidence shows that when Sun first bought wealth management products in 20 14, Ping An Bank made a risk assessment on Sun Jin, and the assessment results showed that Sun was a "balanced" investor. Since then, Sun has been purchasing wealth management products with lower risk level through Ping An Bank.

On June 15 and 10, Sun bought three stock-type Public Offering of Fund through Ping An Bank without reassessing his risk tolerance. The internal risk ratings of these three funds are very high, and Sun invested a total of 9 million yuan.

Soon after Sun bought the fund, he suffered a "stock crash", the stock market plummeted and the fund lost money. On June 16, Sun asked the bank to help him redeem the fund, but at this time, Sun did not redeem it under the opinion that wealth management continued to hold.

On June 28th, Sun went to the bank again to demand the redemption of all wealth management products. In the end, the amount returned by the three funds after redemption was only 6.3424 million yuan, with a loss of 2.6 million yuan.

Ping An Bank failed to introduce and sell suitable wealth management products to customers with low risk tolerance, which violated the obligation of appropriateness that commercial banks should perform when selling wealth management products on a commission basis.

However, in addition to finding that the bank violated the obligation of appropriateness, all the courts of first instance applied the negligence offset rule to reduce the bank's liability on the grounds that the customer failed to fulfill the necessary duty of care and failed to redeem the product in time, and finally the second instance assumed 30% of the investment loss when the first request for redemption was made.

Under the profit, there are frequent violations of agency sales.

The world is bustling, all for profit; The world is bustling for profit.

For a long time, banks have been the main force of funds, insurance, trust, wealth management and other businesses. On the one hand, there are many bank outlets, which makes it have unique advantages in the agency business. On the other hand, thanks to the advantages of online channels and customers, banks have low marginal costs and high profits in carrying out this business.

The reasons involved in the bank's illegal agency sales include: some authorized fund sales outlets are not qualified for fund sales, an effective fund sales disaster recovery system has not been established, the training records of fund sales personnel are incomplete, and customers have not made audio and video recordings when opening accounts on site.

Ping An Bank was also punished for illegal consignment. Last year, Shenzhen Banking Insurance Regulatory Bureau disclosed that Ping An Bank was fined 7.2 million yuan for violating some 15 businesses such as loans, credit cards and product sales agents.

Among them, in the aspect of product consignment, the basic assets of consignment products involve non-standard assets of banks, and the risk isolation between consignment business and other businesses has not been realized; The management of "double recording" is not prudent enough, and the sales staff of financial management are not good at selling words.

In fact, Ping An Bank has a record of illegal consignments. Previously, the official website CBRC released a batch of punishment information. The most striking thing is that Ping An Bank received a ticket from employees of Tianjin Banking Regulatory Bureau 15 for selling wealth management products privately.

According to the penalty information, Ping An Bank Tianjin New Technology Industrial Park Sub-branch was fined 200,000 yuan and Ping An Bank Tianjin Hongqiao Sub-branch was fined 500,000 yuan for privately selling products that were not sold by Ping An Bank Tianjin Branch or sold by agents.

Compared with the fines imposed on sub-branches, the decision of Tianjin Banking Regulatory Bureau to punish the employees of the banks involved is even more shocking. According to the penalty information, 1 person was banned from engaging in banking business for life because he sold products that were not sold by Ping An Bank Tianjin Branch or sold by agents. 1 person is banned from banking for one year; 1 person is warned; Another 10 person was warned for being directly responsible for the above case.

This incident exposed the weakness of internal control of Ping An Bank. In recent years, there have been frequent incidents of "flying orders" in bank financing, and Ping An Bank has been exposed by employees for many times.

2065438+July 2006, Beijing Daily reported that an employee of Ping An Bank Beijing Branch "killed his wife" before leaving his job, and investors' savings of one million yuan were wasted. However, Ping An Bank responded at the time that the core content of this news was inaccurate.

June 20 16, a customer of Ping An Bank broke the news. From June 20 13 to June 20 15, I bought a product named "Night of Falling in Love with the Rich" on the recommendation of many financial managers of Beijing Chaoyangmen Sub-branch and Tiantongyuan Sub-branch of Ping An Bank. In fact, this product with a wealth management cloak is part of the private placement product issued by Beijing Tongfu Rong Hui Equity Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd.

After investors reported the incident to the regulatory authorities, the Beijing Banking Regulatory Bureau replied to investors that after verification, it was found that the former employees of Ping An Bank Beijing Branch sold illegally. ...

"Irregular behaviors such as fund agents, insurance agents and trust agents have a long history. In the final analysis, it is to use information asymmetry to mislead consumers. " Pan Helin, executive director of the Digital Economy Research Institute of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, said that it is necessary to strengthen information transparency, increase penalties for opaque sales and intentional concealment, and properly control fund sales personnel and insurance sales personnel, requiring them to understand the necessary common sense of consignment and supervise their implementation.