Because what the man bought was not bank wealth management at all, but private equity products sold by the bank. A man in Shanghai bought 1.3 million yuan for wealth management and failed to pay it for 3 years!

Mr. Cao is a customer of Jinshan Sub-branch of Guangfa Bank, and he has more than one million deposits in the bank. Bank employees called Mr. Cao over the weekend, saying that there was a product promotion meeting specifically for VIP customers in Jinshan Sub-branch. As relevant leaders of Guangfa Shanghai Branch and Guangfa Head Office participated in several promotion meetings, Mr. Cao did not doubt him, so he bought 1.3 million yuan of wealth management products under the recommendation of Zhou.

however, after the product expires, it cannot be redeemed. In order to protect his legitimate rights and interests, Mr. Cao took the bank to court and demanded that the bank bear corresponding responsibilities and compensate the principal and income. The man did not buy bank wealth management, but private equity products.

it was only after Mr. Cao confirmed that the investment could not be redeemed at maturity that he learned that the so-called 1.3 million bank wealth management he bought was actually not a wealth management product issued by Jinshan Sub-branch of Guangfa Bank, but a private equity fund sold by Jinshan Sub-branch. The name of the fund is Zhongjin Luhe Fund. According to the relevant platform information, Mr. Cao's contribution in the partnership is 1.3 million yuan, and his shareholding ratio is 1.84%.

after Mr. Cao filed a lawsuit with the court, the bank argued that it was only an intermediary transfer bank, and the two parties did not establish a sales relationship. The bank only made a transfer, and there was no provision on the release time of the products involved. In response to the evidence provided by Mr. Cao, the bank said that the evidence could not prove that the bank was related to the products involved.

after the trial, the court found that the bank was at fault, but neither the first trial nor the second trial supported the bank to pay Mr. Cao. The judgment of the second trial stated that Mr. Cao had the right to terminate the partnership and conduct liquidation. If other losses were not compensated after liquidation, he could claim his rights again.

in this incident, the bank is undoubtedly responsible, but Mr. Cao's rash investment without knowing the product is also irresponsible for his personal wealth. This reminds all of us that we must be cautious in investing, otherwise you may never know what you have invested.