Because what the man bought was not bank wealth management at all, but private equity products sold by banks. A man in Shanghai 1.3 million bought wealth management, which has not been returned for 3 years! Mr. Cao is a customer of Guangdong Development Bank Jinshan Sub-branch, and has more than one million deposits in the bank. Bank employees called Mr. Cao over the weekend and said that Jinshan Sub-branch had a product promotion meeting specifically for VIP customers. As relevant leaders of Guangfa Shanghai Branch and Guangfa Head Office participated in many promotion meetings, Mr. Cao had no doubt, so he bought a wealth management product of RMB 6,543,800+RMB 3,000 under the recommendation of Zhou.

However, the product cannot be redeemed after it expires. 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.

What the man bought was not bank wealth management, but private equity products. After Mr. Cao decided that the investment could not be redeemed at maturity, he realized that the so-called bank wealth management of 654.38+0.3 million yuan he bought was actually not a wealth management product issued by Jinshan Branch of Guangfa Bank, but a private equity fund sold by Jinshan Branch. The name of the fund is Admiralty Liuhe Fund. According to the relevant platform information, Mr. Cao's contribution in the partnership is RMB 654.38+0.30 million, and his shareholding ratio is 654.38+0.84%.

After Mr. Cao sued the court, the bank argued that it was only an intermediary transfer bank and the two sides did not establish a buying and selling relationship. The bank only made a transfer, and there was no obligation of appropriateness when the products involved were issued. 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 instance stated that Mr. Cao had the right to terminate the partnership and conduct liquidation. If other losses are not compensated after liquidation, he can claim his rights again.

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