FAQ


Typical case of investors


Case 12

The letter is wrong, the leakage of the shock standard disclosure fair.

In order to meet the needs of the overall planning of "retreat from two to three" in the central area of a municipal government, listed company B gradually relocated the production line of the old factory area located in the central area of the city to the suburbs and development zones outside the province. In July 2012, after completing the relocation of the old factory area, the company signed a compensation agreement for the expropriation of state-owned land with the land management department. The land in the old factory area was collected, stored, transformed and compensated in the mode of "public transfer and income support.

Company B completed the land transfer according to the agreement before the end of 2012, and announced the signing and implementation of the agreement in December of the same year, but did not disclose key information such as specific compensation standards. Due to the hot real estate market at that time, the auction of commercial and residential land in the urban area repeatedly reached new highs. All parties in the market believed that the land acquisition and storage of the old factory area disclosed by the company would greatly increase the company's profits and have a significant impact on the company's stock price. Due to the unclear disclosure of the company's land transfer price and other relevant provisions, various speculations from investors and the media have been triggered. Some believe that the matter can only increase the company's net profit by several hundred million yuan, while others believe that it will be as high as 3. four billion yuan. Some investors followed the trend of speculation, and the company's stock price fluctuated sharply between 5.5 yuan and 9.5 yuan.

How much revenue can land acquisition and storage bring to Company B? The Guangdong Bureau inspected the information disclosure of the company's land purchase and storage matters with doubts, and found that the company omitted some important clauses in the agreement that affect the land price in previous announcements, such as no compensation for the part of the plot ratio exceeding a certain limit, the municipal public construction and allocation expenses will be borne by the company, additional rewards will be obtained for the transfer of land before the agreed time point, and the prepaid compensation obtained in advance may be returned to the municipal government during final liquidation. The above information is sufficient to influence investors to make rational judgments. After discovering the above problems, the Guangdong Bureau required the company to immediately and fully disclose all the important terms of the land acquisition and storage agreement.

Company B subsequently issued a special interim announcement in September 2013, disclosing in detail all the important terms of the land acquisition and storage agreement, and making supplementary corrections to the relevant contents of the company's 2012 annual report. Later, the company learned the early lessons in the follow-up information disclosure of the land acquisition and storage matters, not only timely and fully disclosed the implementation of the agreement, but also timely suspended trading at the key nodes of the implementation of the agreement, to ensure that all investors have fair access to information that has a significant impact on the company. From the perspective of stock price trend, after the company fully disclosed the important provisions of the land purchase and storage agreement, the company's stock price volatility was significantly weakened, and the stock price showed a steady upward trend, reflecting that investors' judgments on the value of the company's stock tended to be consistent under the condition of full disclosure of information.

Case 13

Promised dividends should be honored

In its prospectus, Company E of the jurisdiction promised that the profits distributed by the company in cash from 2011 to 2013 will be 30% of the distributable profits realized in that year. The company went public in March 2012. Only two months later, the company announced that due to the needs of the project and operating funds, it would not distribute profits or implement the conversion of capital reserve to share capital.

After the announcement, investors and the media paid great attention and questioned the company's failure to fulfill the promises made during the IPO. The announcement did not specify the specific reasons for not distributing profits in 2011. In this regard, the company explained that when the company made the cash dividend commitment, it believed that the profit distribution was based on the profit amount of the consolidated statement, but according to relevant regulations, the profit distribution was based on the profit of the parent company. If the profit of the parent company in 2011 is calculated at 30% of the profit of more than 1400 million, only more than 400 million can be distributed to shareholders, which will not benefit investors and will affect the image of the company. But the market does not accept the company's explanation, believing that the company is not believing and deceiving investors.

After learning about the relevant situation, the Guangdong Bureau immediately met with the company's controlling shareholders and relevant directors, supervisors and senior officials to talk, and clearly pointed out that although cash dividends are the company's independent operating decision, the company did not fulfill the promise of cash dividends in the prospectus. The obligation of good faith to small and medium investors. In this regard, the Guangdong Bureau issued regulatory opinion letters to the company and the continuous supervision agency respectively, requiring the company to formulate a specific plan to fulfill the cash dividend commitment as soon as possible and disclose it publicly.

Under the supervision of the Guangdong Bureau, the company reconvened the board of directors to review and approve and disclose the annual profit distribution plan of "cash dividend of RMB 0.35 per 10 shares. The company also implemented an interim dividend in 2012, with a dividend payout rate of over 50% that year. Since its listing, the company has implemented cash dividends for 5 times, with a cumulative cash dividend of 0.13 billion yuan, and the annual dividend payment rate is more than 30%. The company has fulfilled the promise of cash dividends in the prospectus as promised, and has carried out cash dividends for 4 consecutive years.

Case 14

Peach for return

After completing major asset restructuring in 2011, the F listed company in Guangdong area turned losses into profits, with an after-tax profit of nearly 0.7 billion yuan that year. The company's high growth in performance and ample cash flow have overjoyed small and medium investors. Everyone expects the company's high cash dividends to share the tangible benefits of performance growth. However, along with the annual report, the company disclosed a plan not to distribute profits, which disappointed investors and raised doubts in the market.

Is the company's profit unreal and there is no money to share? If it is real, what is the actual reason for not paying dividends? Guangdong Bureau carried out on-site inspection on Company F with doubts, focusing on the verification of the company's profit and financial situation, so as to ensure the authenticity and reliability of the company's dividend basis. The inspection found that the company's management believes that major asset restructuring is the support of major shareholders to listed companies, and cash dividends are the distribution of the company's money to small and medium shareholders, which is not conducive to the company's future development. In response to this misunderstanding, the Guangdong Bureau formally interviewed the chairman of the company.

During the interview, the regulators pointed out that the company's current performance has been greatly improved after the completion of major asset restructuring, laying a good foundation for the company to achieve cash dividends. If you actively return investors, on the one hand, you can establish a good market image of the company and increase the stock price. It also has a positive effect; on the other hand, the company's future refinancing is more likely to be recognized by small and medium investors. On the whole, the implementation of cash dividends has a good positive feedback effect on the implementation of the company's business development strategy. It is hoped that the company will carefully study the feasibility of medium-term cash dividends in combination with the revised articles of association, dividend management system and shareholder return plan while reviewing the 2012 semi-annual report.

At the same time, according to the notice on further implementing the matters related to cash dividends of listed companies, the regulatory authorities also sent a letter to disclose in detail the reasons for not paying cash dividends, the use plan of retained earnings and the expected income, as well as a series of rectification measures such as improving the articles of association and formulating the shareholder return plan for the next three years.

Well-founded analysis and specific rectification measures not only correct the misconceptions of decision makers, but also give ideas for follow-up implementation. After the inspection, the company re-examined the plan for the use of funds, taking into account future investment opportunities and profitability. At the same time as the 2012 interim report disclosed, the board of directors proposed a dividend plan of 10 10 yuan to increase 10 shares. The cash dividend of more than 0.5 billion yuan and the dividend payment rate of 78.59 set a new record for the medium-term dividend in my country's capital market. The company's stock price continued to rise and hit a new high.

Case 15

Valet trading after endless trouble

Xu is the general manager of D securities business department. He was introduced to Cai. Xu boasted that he had rich experience in stock trading and could make a steady profit without losing money. He could operate the stock for Cai and guarantee the principal and fixed income. Cai thought Xu, as the general manager of the sales department, should be good. So the two sides reached an oral agreement, agreed that Xu on behalf of Cai to operate its securities account, Cai a monthly fixed income according to the proportion of 5%, the actual income exceeds the fixed income as Xu's remuneration, lower than the fixed income or loss, by Xu according to the principal and fixed income to make up, the cooperation period of one year.

After that, Cai put 330000 yuan into his securities account and told Xu the account password. Xu operated Cai's securities account and paid 5% of the fixed income to Cai on a monthly basis. The two sides cooperated very happily.

After the expiration of the cooperation, Xu contacted Cai again to ask if he was willing to continue cooperation. Cai felt that Xu's last cooperation was credible, so he reached an oral agreement with Xu again, agreeing that Xu would continue to operate Cai's account and the revenue sharing model would remain the same. However, due to the continuous decline in the stock market, Xu's Cai account suffered a large loss, and Xu stopped making up the principal and paying fixed income to Cai.

Seeing the principal becoming less and less, Cai had to cut meat to clear the warehouse. When Cai took back the right to use the account, his account was only 110000 yuan. After negotiating with Xu for compensation, Cai complained to the Guangdong Bureau, reflecting Xu's alleged securities fraud and demanding Xu to compensate for the loss of principal and pay fixed income. After receiving the complaint, the Guangdong Bureau checked the problems reflected by Cai, and initially determined that Xu, as a securities practitioner, violated the relevant provisions of the Securities Law by accepting clients' entrustment to buy and sell securities, so he filed a case for investigation.

In May 2011, the Guangdong Bureau formally made an administrative penalty decision, finding that Xu's private acceptance of clients' entrustment for securities trading violated Article 145 of the Securities Law, which stipulates that "securities companies and their employees shall not privately accept clients' entrustment to buy and sell securities without going through their legally established business premises", which constitutes "securities companies and their employees violate the provisions of this law" as mentioned in Article 215 of the Securities Law, xu was warned and fined by 100000 yuan for the act of privately accepting clients' entrustment to buy and sell securities.

At the same time, Xu's securities company also dismissed the general manager of its business department and dismissed him for violating securities laws and regulations.

In addition, Cai also filed a civil lawsuit with the court, demanding that Xu compensate for the loss of principal and fixed income totaling 510000 yuan. In July 2011, the relevant court ruled that the entrustment contract between Xu and Cai was invalid because it violated the mandatory provisions of the law, and both parties were at fault. However, Xu, as a securities practitioner, should bear 80% of the principal loss of Cai, Cai should bear 20% of the responsibility, and Xu should eventually compensate Cai for the loss of 180000 yuan. The fixed income portion of Cai's claim was not supported because the relevant agreement violated the law.

Case 16

False propaganda to eat bitter fruit

In August 2012, the Guangdong Bureau received a real-name complaint from investors, reflecting that a business person of H Securities Company in the jurisdiction knew that the secondary share of "an index graded fund" was a non-guaranteed product, but still advertised it as a capital-guaranteed product, and investors incurred substantial losses after purchase.

After consulting the relevant documents, the Guangdong Bureau found that the sub-shares of the graded fund sold by H Securities Company on a commission basis are subject to limited compensation liability for the principal of the fund's priority shares, which are closed and listed for trading after their establishment, and are characterized by high returns and high risks, and are not capital preservation products.

Some customers reported that the sales staff claimed at the product promotion meeting that the product was a capital preservation fund and would not lose money, so they took out their life savings to buy it. During the verification by the Guangdong Bureau, the relevant sales staff first denied this, but bowed their heads and admitted the violation in front of the on-site recording and other evidence provided by the complainant.

The regulatory authorities informed H Securities Company of the verification. The company realized that when carrying out fund consignment business, it placed too much emphasis on performance orientation and neglected to supervise and manage the marketing behavior of practitioners, resulting in marketers taking measures to conceal risks and even publicize non-capital-guaranteed funds as capital-guaranteed funds to promote products and induce customers to buy. In the face of facts and evidence, H Securities Company, in accordance with its internal system, has taken accountability measures such as warning, notification of criticism and deduction of performance bonuses to relevant departments, branch heads and marketing personnel.

In order to make up for investors' losses and eliminate potential disputes, H Securities Company has adopted a variety of compensation measures, including providing direct or indirect economic compensation of more than 200,000 yuan to more than 10 customers, and the issuer of the joint fund product pays a return visit to other customers who have purchased the product And appease, and set up special compensation funds to prepare for subsequent losses that may be caused to customers due to similar reasons.

Case 17

Promised gains are not desirable regulatory punishment is merciless.

J Securities Investment Consulting, a Guangdong jurisdiction, has developed a stock recommendation software and provides securities investment advisory services to investors through the software. Since 2014, the Guangdong Bureau has received real-name complaints from a number of investors, reflecting that Company J has exaggerated its historical performance in the course of carrying out its business, promising investors a return of up to 20% during a service period, but resulting in substantial losses for investors.

After receiving the complaint, the Guangdong Bureau verified the relevant situation through unannounced visits, surprise spot checks and comprehensive on-site inspections. It was investigated that Company J misadvertised the company's historical performance when promoting its investment advisory business to potential clients. Several business personnel of the company have repeatedly told investors that the success rate of the company's recommend of individual stocks has reached 80%, and the income of a service period is about 20%.

After verification and comparison, the historical performance of the company's relevant investment advisory services is inconsistent with the above-mentioned marketing content.

The evidence obtained from the on-site inspection also shows that J Company has omissions in business development, compliance management and risk control, and fails to take effective measures to regulate the practice of business personnel. When the company pays a return visit to customers, it also fails to verify whether the company's business personnel have any irregularities such as promised income according to the requirements of laws and regulations and the company's system, this has led to the widespread use of business personnel to promote their business and solicit customers by exaggerating past performance and promising investment returns.

In response to the above violations, in October 2014, Guangdong Bureau took administrative supervision measures to order J Company to correct, and ordered the company to handle customer complaints and disputes in a timely manner and actively respond to customers' reasonable demands. In the end, J Company gave more than $100,000 in compensation to investors who suffered losses as a result of business personnel's irregular promises of earnings.

Case 18

Marketing behavior should be standardized commission standards should be clear

In July 2014, Cao reported through the 12386 China Securities Regulatory Commission hotline that he transferred to the K Securities Business Department in Guangdong jurisdiction in June 2012. At that time, the customer manager Xu verbally promised that the commission charge standard was 0.4 ‰, but in actual transactions, the business department always charged 0.8 ‰, and sometimes 5 yuan's handling fee was charged for each transaction.

The hotline, through the Guangdong Securities and Futures Association, transferred Cao's complaint to the K business department. The Guangdong Securities and Futures Association actively urged the company to handle the complaint, and also recommended that the company conduct a comprehensive self-examination on account opening commissions to ensure that the fees are fair and reasonable.

The sales department checked Cao's account opening information, return visit recording and other customer files, and found no material that Cao raised any objection to the commission charging standard or applied for adjustment of the commission. Xu, the customer manager, also said that he had not given Cao a promise of 0.4 ‰ of the commission. Regarding the 5 yuan commission issue, according to the relevant provisions of the ''Notice on Adjusting the Securities Trading Commission Collection Standards'' issued by the National Development and Reform Commission and other departments, if the commission for each transaction of A shares is less than 5 yuan, it will be charged at 5 yuan. Therefore, the fee Compliance is reasonable.

The next day, the staff of the sales department took Cao's account opening information and recording, as well as relevant policy documents, and communicated with Cao in person. Cao said that he had no objection to 5 yuan's commission charge, but if it weren't for the customer manager Xu's promise to charge a commission of 0.4 ‰, how could he change accounts?

The sales department said Cao had no proof. Cao was unconvinced, so he dialed the 12386 hotline again to express his dissatisfaction with the business department and asked for reasonable compensation while refunding the overcharged commission.

Seeing that the two sides were "at war", the hotline immediately contacted the Guangdong Securities and Futures Association, hoping to appoint a professional mediator to mediate.

The mediator first obtained Cao's previous commission certificate from the business department, and then reasoned with the person in charge of the business department, saying that although Cao could not provide relevant evidence, his transaction commission had always been 0.8 ‰ before the transfer, which was probably the preferential commission rate. I hope the business department will reconsider the issue of refunding part of the commission. On the other hand, the mediator advised Cao to take a step back and accept the mediation plan in the current situation of insufficient evidence, so as to achieve a win-win situation for both parties.

Under the well-founded mediation of the hotline and Guangdong Securities and Futures Association, the business department refunded part of the commission to Cao, optimized the company's account opening process and increased the signing of commission standard confirmation documents. The smooth solution of the problem made Cao feel the enthusiasm of the 12386 hotline. He finally signed the mediation agreement and continued to stay in the K business department for transactions.

Case 19

Service Endless Patience Ice

With the development of capital market innovation, the complexity of securities business has increased, and misunderstandings and disputes occur from time to time because investors do not understand the business process. Through effective communication and considerate service, the front-line staff of market operators can really help investors solve problems and resolve complaints and disputes one by one.

On a trading day in March 2015, the counter of a securities business department was full of customers. Suddenly, the crowd was in a commotion, and a customer was so emotional that he screamed, "I want to complain!" In order to avoid affecting other customers, the staff of the sales department immediately invited the customer to the reception room to understand the situation.

The original customer needs to handle the bank's third-party depository business, according to the relevant provisions of the bank, the business needs to be confirmed to the bank outlets. For the convenience of customers, the business department applied to the bank for a bank card POS machine to assist customers to complete the contract. But unfortunately, the customer for business in the process of POS machine communication interruption, unable to complete the signing procedures. The teller explained to the customer and advised the customer to go to the bank for follow-up business.

However, the customer believes that the teller is deliberately delaying and requires the teller to immediately handle and obstruct other customers from handling normal business. While patiently explaining to the customer, the staff contacted the bank equipment maintenance personnel to understand the cause of the failure. When they learned that the failure could not be repaired for a short time, they contacted the connected bank outlets and asked the bank to handle relevant business for the customer first. At the same time, the customer will be sent to the bank by special car, accompanied by the whole process, and finally the customer will return with satisfaction.

On the same trading day in March 2015, Ms. Liu asked for a quick redemption of the fund of L Fund Company. She planned to use the redemption money to purchase new shares. However, the redemption failed due to the use of the advance amount of L Fund Company. The customer consulted the customer service of the fund company to find out the situation. The customer service informed Ms. Liu that she could not handle the quick redemption on the day when the advance amount had been used up. Ms. Liu said that due to the failure of quick redemption, she missed the opportunity to make a new call and demanded compensation for her new contingent loss of 40000 yuan.

The customer service personnel communicated with Ms. Liu several times in the following three hours to explain in detail that although the amount of advance money had been used up on that day, they could handle the ordinary redemption business for Ms. Liu, but Ms. Liu refused. After the close of the market on the same day, L Fund Company contacted Ms. Liu again, saying that the company had increased the amount of advance capital and could redeem it quickly if necessary. Ms. Liu said that three o'clock had passed and redemption was meaningless.

In the next few working days, L Fund Company communicated and explained with Ms. Liu many times, hoping that Ms. Liu would understand. In the end, the patience and carefulness of L Fund Company moved Ms. Liu. Ms. Liu no longer asked for compensation or losses, and the dispute was successfully resolved.

Subsequently, L Fund Company took a series of improvement measures, including deciding whether to increase the amount of advance funds according to the purchase situation of new shares in the market, arranging special personnel to monitor the use of the amount of advance funds in real time, and sending short messages to inform customers to make fund arrangements in advance on special times such as new share purchase days and holidays, so that investors can feel more considerate service.

Case 20

Agency transactions without authorization, lax internal control, disputes

In January 2013, futures investors Zhang and Chen Mou reported in writing to the Guangdong Bureau that they all opened accounts in the Q futures business department of the jurisdiction in 2011. The accounts were operated and invested by the employees of the business department. Several business department employees often looked at the trend chart and guided the operation. They said that selling high at this point and buying low would make money, while the account transaction for more than a year eventually resulted in losses.

Guangdong Bureau checked the Q Futures Business Department. After obtaining materials such as account opening data, transaction settlement documents, historical transaction details, details of incoming and outgoing funds and transaction system records, and checking and comparing the IP address and MAC address of the business department computer one by one, it did not find the illegal operation of the business department staff reflected by the complainant.

The Guangdong Bureau stepped up its inspection efforts and found that the futures trading accounts of Zhang and Chen were managed by Tian, the common relative of the two, and Tian was responsible for the entry and exit of gold and trading. The business department's return visit and margin call were answered by Tian. Q Futures Business Department, knowing that Tian is not the owner of the account, also tacitly allows Tian to trade futures through the accounts of two customers in the on-site trading area of the business department.

According to the Measures for the Administration of Futures Companies and the Regulations on the Administration of Account Opening by Customers in the Futures Market, which were implemented at that time, the transaction entrusted by the customer to others should be agreed in the futures brokerage contract, but none of the above-mentioned customers designated Tian as the agent in the signed Futures Brokerage Contract.

After the loss of the transaction, Zhang and Chen both claimed that the account transaction was not an order operation by themselves, believed that the management of the business department was not standardized, and allowed employees or third parties to operate their accounts at will, demanding compensation for economic losses. The business department realized that there were flaws in internal management and contract management, and took the initiative to compensate customers to a certain extent.

In view of the fact that the business department has not reminded the customer of the risk or required the customer to improve the relevant authorization agency procedures, nor has it taken other preventive measures to ensure the safety of the customer's transactions and assets, the Guangdong Bureau has taken regulatory measures to order the business department to make corrections, order the business department to rectify within a time limit and hold the relevant responsible persons accountable.

Combined with the existing problems, the business department comprehensively combed the customer account opening information, improved the account opening management system, and replaced the person in charge of the business department.

Case 21

There are no trivial matters in system safety. Emergency treatment should be proper.

In October 2013, the centralized trading system of R Futures Company in the jurisdiction failed during continuous trading hours, resulting in the interruption of the main trading system and the impact of nearly 800 customer transactions.

After the accident, R Futures Company launched an emergency plan: first, immediately contact the system developer to investigate and repair the fault situation and resume customer transactions. The second is to enable manual emergency declaration, through the emergency telephone hotline for a number of customers to carry out emergency declaration. Third, the system failure and emergency declaration method were notified in time through the SMS platform, the company website and the quotation system. The fourth is to do a good job in customer appeasement and explanation, and issue a letter of apology to investors through the company's website and official Weibo. At the same time, public opinion monitoring is carried out to determine the extent of the spread of the incident. Fifth, report the accident and the extent of its impact to the relevant securities regulatory authorities.

After receiving the report, the Guangdong Bureau immediately organized R Futures Company to deal with the information security incident and sent a special investigation team to conduct on-site verification of the cause of the accident. After verification, the cause of the failure was caused by the human operation error of the system operation and maintenance personnel of R Futures Company, and after the data archiving abnormality was found, the abnormality investigation was not carried out in accordance with the operating procedures, resulting in the centralized trading system not being able to start normally.

According to the verification of the incident, the Guangdong Bureau took regulatory measures to order R Futures Company to correct. R futures company is instructed to comprehensively sort out and investigate the problems existing in the centralized trading system, improve the relevant technical management system and emergency response mechanism, and effectively prevent risks. At the same time, the company is required to start the internal accountability mechanism.

R Futures Company sorted out and investigated the existing problems in internal management, revised and improved the system operation and maintenance management system, organized and carried out emergency drills and training in a targeted manner, and made compensation to customers. In addition, the company has launched an internal accountability process, and has taken punishment measures such as reducing their positions and withholding bonuses for senior executives and responsible personnel.

Case 22

Mediation is just to serve the hearts of the people, and reasoning leads to a win-win situation.

In July 2014, the Guangdong Securities and Futures Association received a complaint from Chen, reflecting that he was a customer of a futures business department in his jurisdiction. His coke contract reached the risk point set by the futures contract on March 10, 2014. The business department notified him by phone at 9:30 on March 10 to add margin. As Chen Mou did not pursue the insurance in time and did not close the position on his own, the business department sent another notice of strong leveling to Chen Mou via text message at 10:10 on March 10, and made a strong leveling of Chen Mou's coke contract at about 10:42, but there was no transaction due to the limit. At about 9:15 on March 11, the sales department once again forced Chen Mou to close the contract and clinch a deal.

Chen Mou believed that the futures business department did not choose the right time to cause losses for its strong leveling and demanded compensation.

By mutual consent, the case was mediated by the Association's mediator. In the first mediation, Chen expressed strong dissatisfaction with the strong leveling of the futures company and demanded compensation for the 120000 of the loss. The futures business department said that although the business department handled the incident improperly, it was in line with the "futures brokerage contract" signed by both parties, and it was impossible for the business department to make compensation.

The mediator expressed his preliminary opinions to Chen: First, according to Article 40 of the Futures Brokerage Contract, Chen should always pay attention to the changes in his position, margin and equity during the process of holding his position, and properly handle it. His trading positions, and Chen did not fulfill the obligations of investors. Second, the futures business department has, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 28 and 32 of the Futures Brokerage Contract, notified Chen Mou in advance of the margin call through the China Futures Margin Monitoring Center inquiry system, the futures company trading system and the futures quotation system, and additionally notified Chen Mou of the margin call by telephone and SMS. Third, according to Article 42 of the Futures Brokerage Contract, the futures company has the right to forcibly close out some or all of Chen's open positions by independently choosing the timing, variety, price and quantity.

The mediator further pointed out that although from a service point of view, it was inappropriate for the business department to only notify by text message when the insurance was pursued again and to settle the coke contract after the limit fell on March 10. But because of these service defects, it is not reasonable to ask the sales department to compensate for the 120000. The mediation communication lasted for nearly 2 hours. Before the end of the conversation, the mediator suggested that Chen reconsider the compensation claim.

In the next two weeks, in the mediator's communication and coordination, Chen reduced the compensation amount to 30000, but the business department still refused to compensate. Chen said he would choose legal procedures to resolve the dispute. After hearing Chen's decision, the mediator said to Chen, "We respect your choice and hope you can win this lawsuit, but the lawsuit is about evidence. At present, both the terms of the contract and the recording of the notice are in favor of the futures business department, and your reasoning alone cannot refute the evidence of the futures business department, so I hope you will consider it carefully." Subsequently, the mediator gave Chen's ideas back to the sales department and was ready to terminate the mediation.

To the mediator's surprise, Chen called the mediator the next evening, hoping that the mediator would provide a reasonable compensation plan and continue the mediation.

After receiving Chen Mou's request, the mediator carefully sorted out the reasons for the dispute. The mediator believes that although the strong leveling behavior of the business department is in line with the provisions of the Futures Brokerage Contract, and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Supreme People's Court's "Minutes on the Trial of Futures Dispute Cases" and "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Futures Dispute Cases", the business department shall bear the liability for compensation if it fails to perform the notification obligation before the strong leveling, but the business department has flaws in this incident of inefficiency and poor service attitude.

Subsequently, the mediator looked through a large number of solutions to similar disputes, and finally put forward suggestions for handling: the sales department refunded the handling fee retained by Chen Mou to date as compensation, and appropriately lowered Chen Mou's future transaction handling fee. The plan was approved by both parties. After discussing the relevant details, the two parties finally signed a mediation agreement on August 18, 2014. So far, a fierce dispute has come to a successful end.

Case 23

Prudent investment private equity funds into the trap of illegal fund-raising

On September 25, 2014, the public security department received a report from the public that S Company, located in a building in Zhujiang New Town, Guangzhou, was suspected of illegally raising investment funds. The Guangzhou Municipal Public Security Department subsequently conducted an investigation and issued a "Letter of Assistance" to the Guangdong Bureau, requesting assistance in identifying the relevant securities business qualifications of Company S.

After investigation, Hu mou, a former bank staff member, registered and established s company in Shenzhen in 2011 and Guangzhou branch in Tianhe, Guangzhou in 2013. At the beginning of 2013, Hu mou and Wang mou, head of company t, agreed that each time company s lends company t a certain amount of funds, the annual rate of return is 24%, the day after each loan occurs, company t pays 1/4 of the income, and then pays quarterly interest until the principal and interest are settled.

In the face of the temptation of huge profits, Hu mou's greed swelled rapidly. in September 2013, together with other personnel, he registered and established Shenzhen s enterprising no 9 investment enterprise (limited partnership) (hereinafter referred to as "enterprising no 9 private equity fund") in the name of s company. he claimed to raise funds in the form of partnership investment and put them into the "air ticket settlement fund" project of t company in stages.

Hu and others promoted the project to unspecified groups of society, raising a total of more than 0.7 billion yuan. In September 2014, the capital chain of the investment project broke and the enterprising No. 9 private equity fund expired, but the principal and interest could not be paid, resulting in the case. Most of the victims in this case were bank customers. The purchase of the product originated from the recommend and introduction of bank employees, and some even signed contracts in the bank office area.

According to the request of the public security department for assistance in the investigation, the Guangdong Bureau issued a confirmation opinion after inquiring about the relevant business qualifications: The China Securities Regulatory Commission has not approved Company S as the fund manager of the publicly raised fund, and the company has not registered with the China Securities Regulatory Commission as a publicly raised fund sales agency. At the same time, Company S and "Enterprise No. 9 Private Equity Fund" did not register and file with the China Fund Industry Association in accordance with the relevant requirements of the "Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Private Investment Funds. For these private equity funds that fail to fulfill the registration and filing obligations in accordance with the law, large-scale and more complaints, the main responsibility of the securities regulatory department is to cooperate with the local government to crack down on their illegal and criminal acts in accordance with the law. As of January 2015, the Guangzhou Municipal Public Security Department has detected the suspected illegal fund-raising case of S company and arrested 13 suspects in accordance with the law.

Case 24

Boasting that the stock god was finally sentenced for illegal consultation.

At the end of October 2011, the Guangdong Bureau received a report from investors, reflecting that Fang released stock recommendation information by setting up QQ groups and blogs, soliciting members and collecting fees, and was suspected of illegally engaging in securities investment consulting activities.

After receiving the report, the Guangdong Bureau immediately organized the staff to carry out verification. After investigation, Fang and others initially set up a science and technology information co., ltd in Zhaoqing city to sell computer accessories. Since 2010, Fang has set up blogs through websites such as Sina and Dongfang Fortune, publishing a large amount of information under the name of "Xiaoyao Leader", commenting on the trend of the market and recommend stocks, in order to induce customers to buy "Stock God Analyst" software from them at a price of 3800 yuan per set.

In fact, this set of software was purchased by Fang from a company in Shanghai at a low price. The software itself has no effect on stock speculation. Once investors purchase this software, they are allowed to join the "free and unfettered leader QQ group" and the "dark horse cattle stock actual combat group" to share Fang's so-called "exclusive information and original stock reviews". Fang recommend stocks to members of the group every day to comment on the trend of the market and individual stocks. Investors who join QQ group also have to pay 360 yuan software maintenance fee every year.

On May 29, 2012, the Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department set up a task force to organize the arrest of Fang and his gang members. After interrogation, since 2010, Fang has absorbed more than 800 customers, collected about 4 million yuan in software purchase and maintenance fees, and made an illegal profit of more than 360 million yuan.

However, ironically, Fang mou, who claims to be "good at capturing hot spots and leading stocks", never speculates in stocks on weekdays. his stock recommendation content is only collected and sorted out from the internet every day, not the research results of Fang mou and his gang. Investors can get it from the stock market analysis and research articles published in the media.

In November 2012, the People's Court of Duanzhou District, Zhaoqing City convicted Fang of illegal business operations in accordance with the law, sentenced him to ten months in prison, suspended for one year, and fined 55,000 yuan and confiscated related illegal gains.

Previous Page

Next Page

Picture Name

Nanhua Instruments Co., Ltd.

Add: 1 Kehong, Rd., Guicheng, Nanhai District, Foshan City, Guangdong 528251 CHINA
Tel: +86 757 86718778
Export Dept.
Tel: +86 757 86718629
Email: Export@nanhua.com

Online Message

Pre-sales After-sales

Model:

Submit

Model:

Submit