Research On The Civil Liability Of Financial Institutions Breaching The Obligation Of Suitability

In order to make it easier for investors to understand financial products,make up for the failure of information disclosure system,and balance the two value orientions of financial innovation and financial security,the obligation of financial institution propriety came into being.In 2019,the revision of the Securities Law of the People’s Republic of China and the release of the Minutes of the Conference on Civil and Commercial Trials of the National Courts have stipulated the civil liability of financial institutions for violating the obligation of propriety in terms of legislation and law application,but the system is still immature.The empirical analysis of cases involving financial institutions’ obligations of propriety shows that the number of cases increases steadily year by year,the appeal rate of disputes over obligations of propriety remains high,the success rate of financial institutions is low,and the scope of responsibility after losing a lawsuit is very different.After a detailed analysis of the two classic cases,the problems existing in the civil liability system of propriety obligation include unclear boundary between propriety obligation and disclosure obligation,inconsistent standard of judicial identification risk matching,dispute over the nature of civil liability for violating propriety obligation,unreasonable exemption of financial institutions,etc.This thesis analyzes the theory of appropriateness obligation from the perspective of economics and law.It is necessary to perfect the system of appropriateness obligation,and the principle of honesty and credit is more compatible with our local legal resources.Based on this theory,we should improve the civil liability system of propriety obligation from the following aspects: First,we should clarify the relationship between propriety obligation and disclosure obligation,and make clear that the core of propriety obligation is risk matching;Second,establish the "form + substance" risk matching examination way,clear the applicable premise of risk matching material examination;Third,investors are given the right to request the right of competition and cooperation;Fourthly,the principle of negligence offset is excluded in the case of propriety obligation.