"Jinpin" is deeply involved in litigation.
On March 5th, 20021kloc-0, the (2020) Beijing 0 105 financial reportNo.1610/released by China Judgment Document Network showed that the applicant Fan Xiaoting and Jin Pin (Beijing) invested in the fund. If the deposit is insufficient, the property equivalent to the insufficient part shall be sealed up or detained. After examination, the People's Court of Chaoyang District of Beijing held that Fan Xiaoting's application for property preservation was in compliance with the law and should be allowed.
On March 8 of the previous day, China Judgment Document Network published (2020) Jing 0 105 Cai BaoNo. 1577 civil ruling. The applicant Chen Ye applied to the respondent Jinpin (Beijing) Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd. and Wang Xuejing for pre-litigation property preservation, and requested to seal up, detain and freeze the property in the respondent's name with a value of 41031.11yuan, which was approved by the Beijing Chaoyang District People's Court.
On March 3, the Miyun District People's Court of Beijing also made a civil ruling on the dispute over the entrusted financial management contract related to Jinpin (Beijing) Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd., but because Jinpin (Beijing) Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd. raised an objection to the jurisdiction, the case was transferred to the Chaoyang District People's Court of Beijing for trial.
In addition, on March 5, March 8, and February 4, respectively, relevant documents were issued for the withdrawal of complaints by Jinpin (Beijing) Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd., Jinpin (Beijing) Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd. and Beijing Jinpin Holdings Co., Ltd. The causes of action are private lending disputes, contract disputes and contract disputes. On June 28th this year, 65438, Beijing No.2 Intermediate People's Court issued a civil ruling, rejecting Jinpin (Beijing) Asset Management Co., Ltd.' s application to cancel the first-instance ruling of a contract dispute case, and rejecting Jinpin (Beijing) Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd.' s application to transfer the case to Beijing Chaoyang District People's Court.
In addition, on June 4 this year, 65438, the Intermediate People's Court of Pingxiang City, Jiangxi Province issued a civil ruling on the causes of private lending disputes. Plaintiff Liu Yin reached a settlement agreement with defendant (Beijing) Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd., Beijing CIC Investment Management Center (Limited Partnership), Beijing yuanshi county Chuangshi Wealth Asset Management Co., Ltd., Beijing Holding Co., Ltd. and Chen Shuogang, and after fulfilling it, she voluntarily applied to withdraw the lawsuit. Allow Liu to drop the lawsuit. A number of civil rulings related to the plaintiff and the defendant were issued before and after, and the frozen accounts and shares of several defendants were unfrozen.
According to the civil ruling of China Judgment Document Network, except for a few documents, most of the above cases were closed from September 2020 to 65438+February. Since the third quarter of 2020, companies in the gold sector have been deeply involved in litigation.
Beijing Securities Regulatory Bureau misled investors and punished them with "contending for orders" and false promises.
In addition, the companies involved also include a company named Jingtou Rong Sheng Investment Management Center (Limited Partnership). The products involved in private placement include "Jinpin Ruixiang 3354 Stock Investment No.5" and "Wealth Management Bao Ji Feng Optimal Wealth Management Plan", which have not been filed with China Asset Management Association.
However, the Measures for the Administration of Raising Behavior of Private Equity Funds, which was implemented in July, 20 16, clearly stipulates that the investment amount of a single private equity fund shall not be less than1000000 yuan, the financial assets of individual investors shall not be less than 3 million yuan or the average annual income of individuals in the last three years shall not be less than 500000 yuan. No unit or individual may illegally divide or transfer it.
On March 10, Beijing Securities Regulatory Bureau issued the Decision on Taking Administrative Supervision Measures to Order Jinpin (Beijing) Asset Management Co., Ltd. to Correct. The decision said that after investigation, it was found that the company issued unregistered private equity funds, which violated the provisions of Article 8 of the Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Private Equity Funds. According to Article 33 of the Interim Measures, it is decided to take administrative supervision measures against the company and order it to make corrections.
A large number of private wealth management products under Jinpin began to appear overdue. Today, there are still many investors who have nowhere to complain, and some of them resort to legal channels.
The lawyer reminded the investors in this case that the mediation materials need to be carefully examined.
The civil ruling published by China Judgment Document Network shows that after 2020, more and more investors involved in the case seek legal channels to resolve disputes, including private lending disputes and contract disputes. Many cases have been filed and a settlement case has been reached.
On June 29th, 65438, the People's Court of Fengtai District of Beijing issued the Civil Ruling of First Instance on the Contract Dispute between He Junyi and Jinpin (Beijing) Asset Management Co., Ltd., which showed that He Junyi filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Fengtai District of Beijing, requesting a judgment 1. The defendant compensated the plaintiff for the loan principal of 400,000 yuan only; 2. The defendant paid the plaintiff interest of 16000 yuan; 3. The defendant shall pay overdue interest to the plaintiff at the rate of 1.6% per year, based on 4 1.6 million yuan, from August 29, 2020 until the principal is fully paid off; The legal costs of this case shall be borne by the defendant. Facts and reasons: In May, 2065438+2007, the plaintiff purchased the Baojifeng boutique optimal financial plan initiated by Beijing Jinpin Yongchang Investment Management Center as the manager through Beijing Zhongke Chuang Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongke Chuang Company), with a loan of 400,000 yuan, with an agreed interest of 4% and a term of 3 months. The plaintiff paid 400,000 yuan to Zhongke Chuang Company on May 65438+ in 2007. Houkechuang Company pays the plaintiff's interest 16000 yuan every three months as agreed. Since March 2020, the plaintiff has repeatedly proposed to Jiang Xiao, the marketing director of this wealth management product, that the insurance will not be renewed after it expires on May 28, 2020, and demanded to repay the principal of 400,000 yuan. However, Jiang Xiaoxian delayed the repayment of the principal for various reasons, and later said that the company's business was not good, so it could not repay the principal on time and asked the plaintiff to renew it. The plaintiff insisted on not renewing the contract. After several negotiations, the other party proposed that 10 should pay the plaintiff's principal every month, and only 10% of the principal can be paid every month, with no interest during the period. After the plaintiff's consideration
Later, it was decided to renew the contract for another three months until August 28, 2020, and signed the "Occupation Agreement of Wealth Management Baojifeng Boutique Optimized Wealth Management Plan" with the defendant. The agreement stipulates that the investment period is three months, and the interest for three months is still 4%. In August, 2020, the plaintiff informed Jiang Xiao, who was in charge of the product, that he would not renew the insurance after the expiration and demanded to repay the plaintiff's 400,000 principal. However, although Jiang Xiao recognized that the defendant should return the principal and pay interest at 4%, he refused to return the principal as agreed on the grounds that the defendant company had no money. Later, Jiang Xiao arranged to send the plaintiff a copy of the Description and the renewal contract signed by Jinpin (Beijing) Investment Fund on September 4, 2020, and signed it privately on behalf of the plaintiff. The explanation shows that the defendant recognized that the plaintiff's investment of 400,000 yuan should be returned on August 28, 2020, but it could not be paid on schedule due to the epidemic situation, and said that the payment would be arranged after the epidemic situation eased. These are the basic facts of the case.
Although Jinpin (Beijing) Asset Management Co., Ltd. raised an objection to the jurisdiction of this case and appealed to Beijing No.2 Intermediate People's Court, Beijing No.2 Intermediate People's Court has rejected the objection of Jinpin (Beijing) Asset Management Co., Ltd. and upheld the original judgment.
In addition, according to the Notice of Enforcement of Liu Nongmin Lending Disputes issued by Pingxiang xiangdong district People's Court, in June 2020, Pingxiang xiangdong district People's Court imposed penalties on two accounts of Beijing CIC Investment Management Center (Limited Partnership), Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd. and one account of Beijing Shengze Huixin Investment Management Center (Limited Partnership) held by (Beijing) Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd., However, the Civil Rulings of Liu Yu (Beijing) Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd., Beijing CIC Investment Management Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yuanshi Investment Management Center issued by the Intermediate People's Court of Pingxiang City, Jiangxi Province on October 4, 20021year/KLOC-0 showed that the xiangdong district People's Court of Pingxiang City had lifted the freeze on the accounts and shares of several defendants.
A lawyer surnamed Chen believes that property preservation can be frozen into equity instead of cash as far as the current situation is concerned, which has been greatly reduced compared with the cases of suing for preservation in the middle of last year. Moreover, mediation information has been published in China's judgment documents online, and now it is necessary to carefully review more and more mediation information online.
Regarding the location of the case, Mr. Chen said that the cause of the case against Jinpin Company was basically "private lending". Legally speaking, the case can be filed in both the plaintiff's location and the defendant's location, which seems to give investors with registered permanent residence outside Chaoyang, Beijing the opportunity to sue outside Chaoyang, but in fact, cases involving gold products can be filed normally in Chaoyang District and Haidian District, Beijing, and the case can be filed very quickly in Chaoyang District, Beijing, and the shortest filing time is to submit an application. You can also file a case in Tongzhou District and Shijingshan District of Beijing, but you need to communicate with the judge of the filing court. It is difficult to file a case in Fangshan District and Dongcheng District of Beijing.
Regarding the object of filing a case, lawyer Chen believes that in the company's litigation, the defendants with practical litigation significance are (Beijing) Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd., (Beijing) Asset Management Co., Ltd. and Beijing Holding Co., Ltd.
This article comes from China Net Finance.
Related questions and answers: Can Jinpin repay the customer's money today? Of course, Jinpin still has to pay back the customer's money, because it can't be entrusted. If there is a problem with the reputation of the whole enterprise, it will be affected, including huge benefits. Jinpin Holdings recently announced that under the supervision of various departments, it actively implemented the settlement business and disclosed the information that appeared on the Internet recently. The article once again emphasizes the content of reconciliation. Focus on the official explanation of some bad information on the internet, please pay attention to the official announcement, so as not to believe the rumors, and all the information released by Jinpin Holdings is the main one. At the same time, Jinpin Holdings has established a liquidation mechanism with strong vertical communication, efficient horizontal coordination and three-dimensional linkage, and strengthened the liquidation and liquidation assessment methods; Actively respond to supervision and inspection, continue to advance the liquidation progress, guide investors to establish a correct belief in repaying, and prepare for the final step to improve the repaying work.