The jurisdiction of entrusted financial management cases is a prominent problem in trial practice. Because entrusted financing is an investment management activity in financial markets such as securities and futures, and financial markets are not a regional concept, it is difficult to determine an objective and specific performance place for entrusted financing transactions; In particular; The entrusted financial management case is complicated; The judicial standards of local courts are different; This makes it difficult to judge the place where the contract is performed or the infringement zone; In addition, in judicial practice, the domicile of financial institutions such as securities and futures is usually confirmed as the place of performance of the contract, while the defendants in entrusted financial management cases are mostly financial institutions such as securities companies and futures companies, and their domicile coincides with the place of performance of the contract.

Therefore, in the case of entrusted financial management, the general principle should be that "the plaintiff is the defendant" (the defendant's domicile is not limited to its institutional headquarters), and it is not appropriate to stipulate that the place of performance of the contract and the place of infringement are the competent courts; If there are several defendants, the plaintiff can choose the place where one of the defendants is located to sue; The parties may agree on a court with jurisdiction to settle disputes, but it shall be within the scope stipulated in Article 25 of the Civil Procedure Law.

Legal basis:

Article 23 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the defendant's domicile or the place where the contract is performed.