Font Size: a A A

Research On The Judicial Application Of Suitability Of Commercial Banks’ Financial Services

Posted on:2024-05-22Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:Z H HongFull Text:PDF
GTID:2556307184996369Subject:Law and finance
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
As an important part of the asset management industry,financial services of banks refer to the asset management business in which commercial banks provide financial products or financial services to investors.Under the banking dominated financial system,commercial banks have obvious advantages in customer resources and credit levels.Commercial banks have long issued financial products with expected returns,and investors have a high degree of trust in them.However,as the "rigid payment" is forbidden,commercial banks can no longer guarantee capital and return on financial products,and investors must independently judge the risks and profits,which means commercial banks should fully fulfill the duties of suitability when selling financial products,so that investors can buy appropriate financial products.From the judicial practice,there are a lot of disputes between banks and investors caused by the duties of suitability.In 2019,the Supreme People’s Court adopted the "The Meeting Minutes on Civil and Commercial trials of National Courts" to provide guidance for courts to adjudicate some of the disputes,which made the litigation much easier,and the amount of commercial banks’ suitability cases increased significantly.However,from the concrete point of view,Chinese courts are inconsistent in many aspects of commercial banks’ suitability obligation adjudication.First of all,the confusion of investor classification makes it unreasonable to apply the suitability standard differently.A considerable part of the reason for the confusion of suitability obligation in judicial practice lies in the confusion of classification of investors in China’s financial market.Different regulatory documents in different industries adopt different classifications,similar concepts are mixed,and the logic between different concepts is confused,which does not meet the different requirements of different markets or investors.Secondly,some courts take the amount of investor’s loss as the constitutive requirement of liability.In some cases,the financial products of commercial banks may fall into troubles of liquidation due to the bankruptcy of the manager or the failure of the manager to fulfill the liquidation obligation.At this time,the investors filed a lawsuit against the commercial bank for violating the obligation of propriety.The financial products were not liquidated,and the specific amount of losses could not be determined.Some courts reject the claim only because the product has not been liquidated which is actually confuses the "damage" with the "amount of loss".Finally,the application of comparative negligence has a large difference in standards.In the current appropriateness cases,the court often attaches more importance to the comparison of faults in the application of the application of comparative.However,in different cases,the courts have different standards for comparing investors’ faults.As for the above problems in judicial practice,this paper sorted out the cases of suitability obligation of commercial banks,selected representative cases for analysis,and analyzed the problems and the reasons.This paper puts forward the following suggestions: First,it should be clear what kinds of differences exist between ordinary investors and professional investors,qualified investors in terms of property status,risk tolerance,investment level,investment experience and other aspects,and what impact it has on the obligation standards of commercial banks when selling financial products.Second,in the case that financial products have not been liquidated,the relationship between product liquidation and loss amount recognition should be clearly distinguished,and the loss amount recognition method should be formulated in the case of liquidation dilemma.Third,in cases where investors intentionally provide false information or investors voluntarily mismatch risks,specific judgments should be made according to the difficulty of identifying false information and the degree of trust between investors and commercial banks to determine the distribution of responsibilities between investors and commercial banks.
Keywords/Search Tags:Suitability, Asset Management, Bank Wealth Management, Judicial Application
PDF Full Text Request
Related items