Very reasonable, because this wealth management product itself has problems. The CBRC also pointed out that the bank did not consider the related risks when designing this product, so it is reasonable for the bank to compensate customers. It has been several months since last year's crude oil treasure incident, but on the first day of the new year, the crude oil treasure incident has once again ushered in new progress. Recently, a court in Jiangsu sentenced a dispute case about crude oil treasure, and finally bound the promotion bank of crude oil treasure. China Bank must bear the customer's warehouse loss and 20% of the principal loss, and the bank must also pay the relevant capital occupation fee. This is also the first time that the court has pronounced a verdict on the incident since the crude oil treasure incident.

According to the news released by the court, crude oil treasure was established two years ago, and the margin trading method of 100% was adopted. This product does not have the characteristics of leveraged futures trading, so the purchase agreement signed by both parties is legal and effective. Although in the design of this product, the bank did have the risk of prompting by SMS, but it did not take into account the extreme situation of the original futures price, nor did it fully prompt similar risks. Moreover, the most important thing is that the bank did not implement the clause in the agreement that the margin fell to more than 20% and closed the position in time, so the bank should be responsible for the loss of time, so the bank was finally awarded to compensate the customer for all the losses.

In fact, the China Banking Regulatory Commission announced the punishment results earlier, and found that the bank violated the rules in product design, promotion and sales, so it fined the institution 50.5 million yuan, fined the person in charge 500,000 yuan, and demanded that the bank compensate customers for related losses.

However, the results of this court judgment show that banks should not only compensate customers for their losses, but also compensate 20% of the principal and the occupation cost of related funds, which is equivalent to increasing the compensation of banks. After the verdict was pronounced, the two sides also reached an agreement and decided to pay compensation, and the customer also recognized that they would not sue again.