Mistakes and Omissions of Letters Caused Vibration, Standardized Disclosure and Fairness
In order to meet the needs of a certain municipal government's “retreat from two to enter three” overall plan for the central area of the city, B listed company gradually relocated its old factory production lines 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 state-owned land acquisition compensation agreement with the land management department. The old factory area land was purchased, stored, transformed and compensated in the “open transfer, income support” model.
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 booming real estate market at that time, and the auctions of commercial and residential land in urban areas repeated record highs, all parties in the market believed that the company's disclosure of the purchase and storage of land in the old factory area 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 terms, it has triggered various speculations from investors and the media. 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 30 to 400 billion yuan. , Causing some investors to follow the trend and speculation, the company's stock price fluctuated sharply between 5.5 yuan and 9.5 yuan.
How much revenue can land purchase and storage bring to Company B? The Guangdong Bureau checked the information disclosure of the company’s land purchase and storage matters with questions, and found that the company had omitted some important terms in the agreement that affected the land price in the previous announcements, such as the part of the plot ratio exceeding a certain limit, no compensation, The cost of municipal public construction will be borne by the company, the land will be handed over before the agreed time point to obtain additional rewards, and the prepaid compensation funds obtained in advance may be returned to the municipal government when the final liquidation is finalized. 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 important terms of the land purchase and storage agreement.
Company B subsequently issued a special temporary announcement in September 2013, disclosing in detail all important terms of the land purchase and storage agreement, and supplemented and corrected the relevant content of the company's 2012 annual report. Later, the company learned early lessons in the follow-up information disclosure of the land purchase and storage matters, not only timely and fully disclosed the implementation of the agreement, but also suspended trading at key points in the implementation of the agreement to ensure that all investors fairly obtain information that has a significant impact on the company. From the perspective of stock price trends, after the company fully disclosed the important terms of the land purchasing and storage agreement, the company's stock price volatility has been significantly reduced, and the stock price has shown a steady upward trend, reflecting that investors' judgments on the company's stock value tend to be consistent with the full disclosure of information .
Promised dividends, should be honored
E company in the jurisdiction promised in the prospectus that the company’s profit distributed in cash from 2011 to 2013 will be 30% of the distributable profit 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, no profit distribution will be carried out, and no capital reserve will be converted into share capital.
After the announcement, investors and the media paid great attention and questioned the company's failure to fulfill the promise made during the IPO. The announcement did not elaborate on the specific reasons for the non-distribution of 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. Calculating 30% of the company's more than 14 million profits, only more than 4 million can be distributed to shareholders. This will not benefit investors and will affect the company's image. However, the market did not accept the company's explanation, believing that the company was unbelievable and fooled investors.
After learning about the relevant situation, the Guangdong Bureau immediately met with the company’s controlling shareholder and relevant directors, supervisors, and senior officials. It clearly pointed out that although cash dividends are the company’s independent business decision, the company has not fulfilled the promise of cash dividends in the prospectus and violated The fiduciary duty to small and medium investors. In response, the Guangdong Bureau issued a supervisory opinion letter to the company and the continuous supervision agency, requesting the company to formulate a specific plan for fulfilling 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 disclosed the annual profit distribution plan of "distributing a cash dividend of RMB 0.35 per 10 shares". The company also implemented a mid-term dividend in 2012, with a dividend payout ratio of over 50% that year. Since the company’s listing, the company has implemented cash dividends 5 times, accumulating cash dividends of 130 million yuan, and the annual dividend payout rate is above 30%. The company has fulfilled the promise of cash dividends in the prospectus as scheduled and has paid cash dividends for 4 consecutive years.
Vote for a peach and reward for a plum
Listed company F in Guangdong jurisdiction turned losses into profits after completing a major asset reorganization in 2011, and achieved after-tax profits of nearly 700 million yuan that year. The company's high performance growth and abundant cash flow have surprised small and medium investors. Everyone is looking forward to the company's high cash dividends and sharing the tangible benefits of performance growth. However, what the company disclosed along with its annual report was a plan not to distribute profits. This disappointed investors and raised doubts in the market.
Is the company's profit unreal and there is no money to divide? If true, what is the actual reason for not paying dividends? The Guangdong Bureau carried out an on-site inspection of Company F with questions, focusing on checking the company's profitability and financial status to ensure that the company's dividend base is true and reliable. During the inspection, it was found that the management of the company believed that the major asset reorganization was the support of the major shareholders for the listed company, and the cash dividend was to distribute the company’s money to small and medium shareholders, which was 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 supervisor pointed out that the company’s current performance after the completion of the major asset restructuring has greatly improved, laying a good foundation for the company to realize cash dividends. If the company actively returns to investors, on the one hand, it can establish a good market image of the company and increase the stock price. There are also positive effects; on the other hand, the company's future refinancing is easier to get the recognition of small and medium investors. In general, the implementation of cash dividends has a 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 mid-term cash dividend distribution in conjunction with the revised articles of association, dividend management system and shareholder return planning while reviewing the 2012 semi-annual report.
At the same time, in accordance with the "Notice on Further Implementing Cash Dividends of Listed Companies", the regulatory authorities issued a letter to propose detailed disclosure of the reasons for not granting cash dividends, the plan for the use of retained earnings and expected earnings, as well as the improvement of the company's articles of association and formulation of future A series of rectification measures including the three-year shareholder return plan.
Reasonable analysis and specific rectification measures have not only corrected the misunderstanding of decision-makers, but also provided follow-up implementation ideas. After the inspection, the company re-examined the fund use plan based on future investment opportunities and profitability. At the same time as the 2012 interim report disclosed, the board of directors proposed a dividend plan for 10 shares of 10 yuan to be transferred. The cash dividend of more than 500 million yuan and the dividend payout ratio of 78.59% set a record for the mid-term dividend of my country's capital market, which was widely praised in the market. With the support, the company's stock price continued to rise and hit a new high.
Valet trader has endless troubles
Xu is the general manager of D Securities Business Department, and he met his client Cai. Xu boasted that he has rich experience in stock trading and can make sure that he makes no loss. He can operate the stock and guarantee the principal and fixed income for Cai. Cai thought that Xu, as the general manager of the sales department, should have a good level. So the two parties reached an oral agreement, agreeing that Xu will operate his securities account on behalf of Cai. Cai will receive fixed income at a rate of 5% every month. The part of the actual income exceeding the fixed income will be regarded as Xu's remuneration, which is lower than the fixed income or loss. , Xu will be supplemented by principal and fixed income, and the cooperation period is one year.
Later, Cai added 330,000 yuan to his securities account and told Xu the account password. Xu operated Cai's securities account and paid Cai a 5% fixed income on a monthly basis. The cooperation between the two parties was very good.
After the cooperation period expired, Xu contacted Cai and asked whether he would like to continue cooperation. Cai, who tasted the sweetness for the first time, felt that Xu's last cooperation was still credible, so he reached an oral agreement with Xu again, agreeing that Xu will continue to operate Cai's account, and the revenue sharing model remains the same. However, due to the continuous decline in the stock market, Xu’s account of Cai had a large loss, Xu stopped making up the principal and paying fixed income to Cai.
Seeing that the principal is getting less and less, Cai had to cut the meat and clear the warehouse. When Cai took back the right to use the account, his account was only 110,000 yuan left. After negotiating with Xu for compensation, Cai complained to the Guangdong Bureau, reflecting Xu's suspected 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 issues reported by Cai and initially determined that Xu, as a securities practitioner, had violated the relevant provisions of the Securities Law when he accepted the client's 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 and determined that Xu’s privately entrusted securities transactions by clients violated Article 145 of the “Securities Law” concerning “Securities companies and their employees must not fail to be established according to law. The provisions of “securities companies and their practitioners in violation of the provisions of this law by privately accepting clients’ entrustment to buy and sell securities” as stated in Article 215 of the “Securities Law”. Xu was given a warning and fined 100,000 yuan.
At the same time, Xu's securities company also dismissed his position as the general manager of the sales department because of his violation of securities laws and regulations.
In addition, Cai also filed a civil lawsuit in the court, demanding Xu to compensate the total loss of principal and fixed income of 510,000 yuan. In July 2011, the relevant court ruled that the commission contract between Xu and Cai was invalid due to violation of the mandatory provisions of the law. Both parties were at fault in this regard, but Xu, as a securities practitioner, should deal with Cai Jin assumes 80% of the main responsibility for the loss, and Cai assumes 20% of the responsibility. Xu should eventually compensate Cai for the loss of 180,000 yuan. The fixed income part of Cai's claim was not supported because the relevant agreement violated the law.
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 sub-units of "an index graded fund" were non-principal-guaranteed products, but still advertised it as a principal-guaranteed product. Investors bought Significant losses occurred after entering.
After consulting the relevant documents, the Guangdong Bureau found that the sub-units of the tiered fund sold by H Securities Co., Ltd. had to bear the limited compensation liability for the principal of the priority units of the fund. After its establishment, the operation was closed and listed for trading, which has the characteristics of high yield and high risk , Not a guaranteed product.
Some customers reported that the sales staff claimed at the product promotion meeting that the product is a capital-guaranteed fund and would not lose money, so they used their life savings to buy it. During the inspection conducted by the Guangdong Bureau, the relevant sales staff first denied this, but in front of the on-site recording and other evidence provided by the complainant, they bowed their heads and admitted the fact of the violation.
The regulatory authority notified H Securities Company of the verification results. The company realized that when it launched its fund agency business, it placed too much emphasis on performance orientation and neglected supervision and management of the marketing behaviors of practitioners, leading marketers to conceal risks and even Promote non-principal-guaranteed funds as principal-guaranteed funds and other means to promote products to induce customers to buy. In the face of facts and evidence, H Securities Co., in accordance with its internal system, took accountability measures of warnings, notifications of criticism, and deduction of performance bonuses against relevant departments, heads of branches, and marketing personnel.
In order to make up for investor losses and eliminate potential disputes, H Securities Co. has adopted various compensation measures, including direct or indirect economic compensation of more than 200,000 yuan to more than 10 customers. The issuer of the joint fund product paid a return visit to other customers who purchased the product. And comfort, and set up a special compensation fund to prepare for subsequent losses that may be caused to customers due to similar reasons.
The promised income is undesirable, the supervision and punishment are not merciful
J Securities Investment Consulting Company in the jurisdiction of Guangdong has developed stock recommendation software and provides investors with securities investment consulting services through the software. Since 2014, the Guangdong Bureau has received real-name complaints from many investors, reflecting that company J has exaggerated its historical performance in the course of its business development and promised investors that its income can reach 20% within a service period. Investors suffered substantial losses.
After receiving the complaint, the Guangdong Bureau inspected the situation through unannounced visits, surprise spot checks and comprehensive on-site inspections. Upon investigation, when J company promoted its investment advisory business to potential customers, it falsely publicized the company’s historical performance. Several business personnel of the company have repeatedly stated to investors that the success rate of the company's recommendation of individual stocks has reached 80%, and the return of one service period is about 20%.
After verification and comparison, the historical performance of the company's related investment advisory services does not match the above-mentioned marketing and promotional content.
The evidence obtained from the on-site inspection also showed that Company J had omissions in business development, compliance management and risk control, and failed to take effective measures to regulate the practice of business personnel; the company did not follow the laws, regulations and laws when conducting return visits to customers. The company’s system requires verification of whether the company’s business personnel have committed income and other violations, which has led to the widespread use of business personnel to exaggerate past performance and promise investment returns to promote business and solicit customers.
In response to the above-mentioned violations, in October 2014, the Guangdong Bureau took administrative supervision measures to order corrections to Company J, and ordered the company to promptly handle customer complaints and disputes and actively respond to customers' reasonable demands. In the end, J company gave more than 100,000 yuan to investors who suffered losses due to business personnel's violation of the promise of earnings.
Marketing behavior should be standardized, commission standards should be clear
In July 2014, Cao reported through the 12386 China Securities Regulatory Commission’s hotline that he transferred his account to the K Securities Sales Department in Guangdong’s jurisdiction in June 2012. At that time, the account manager Xiao Xu verbally promised that the commission charge standard was 0.4‰, but the business was in actual trading. The Ministry has always charged 0.8‰, and sometimes a handling fee of 5 yuan per transaction.
The hotline passed the Guangdong Securities and Futures Association to transfer Cao's complaint to the K business department for processing. The Guangdong Securities and Futures Association actively supervised the company to handle the complaint. At the same time, it also recommended that the company conduct a comprehensive self-examination on account opening commissions to ensure that the charges are fair and reasonable.
The sales department checked Cao's account opening information, return visit recordings and other customer files, and found no material that Cao raised objections to the commission charging standards or applied for commission adjustment. The account manager Xiao Xu also said that he had not given Cao a commitment of 0.4‰. Regarding the 5 yuan commission issue, according to the relevant provisions of the "Notice on Adjusting the Securities Trading Commission Collection Standard" 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, this fee Compliance is reasonable.
The next day, the staff of the sales department took Cao's account opening information and recordings, and related policy documents, and communicated to Cao in person. Cao said that he has no objection to the commission charge of 5 yuan, but if the account manager Xiao Xu promised to charge 0.4‰ commission, how could he transfer accounts?
The sales department said that Cao had no proof. Cao was not convinced, so he once again called the 12386 hotline to express his dissatisfaction with the sales department, requesting a refund of the overcharged commission and reasonable compensation.
Seeing that the two parties were "attentive", the hotline immediately contacted the Guangdong Securities and Futures Association, hoping to assign a professional mediator to mediate.
The mediator first obtains Cao's previous commission fee voucher from the sales department, and then reasoned with the person in charge of the sales department, saying that although Cao could not provide relevant evidence, his transaction commission was always 0.8‰ before the transfer, prompting him to transfer The reason is probably the preferential commission rate. I hope that the sales department will reconsider the issue of refunding part of the commission. On the other hand, the mediator used pros and cons to Cao Mouxiao and suggested that he step back and accept the mediation plan under the current insufficient evidence to achieve the goal of mutual benefit.
Under the well-founded mediation of the hotline and the Guangdong Securities and Futures Association, the sales department refunded part of the commission to Cao, and at the same time optimized the company's account opening process and increased the link to sign the commission standard confirmation documents. The smooth resolution 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 sales department to conduct transactions.
Endless service, patience to make ice
With the innovation and development of the capital market, the complexity of the securities business has increased, and investors often have misunderstandings and disputes because they do not understand the business process. Through effective communication and considerate service, the front-line staff of the main market operators can truly 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 crowded with customers. Suddenly, the crowd became agitated. A customer was emotional and screamed: "I want to complain!" In order to avoid affecting other customers, the sales department staff immediately invited the customer to the reception room to understand the situation.
Originally, the customer needed to handle the bank's third-party depository business. According to the relevant regulations of the bank, the business needs to be confirmed at the bank branch. For the convenience of customers, the sales department applied to the bank for a bank-securities POS machine to assist customers in completing the contract. But unfortunately, the communication of the POS machine was interrupted during the customer's business process, and the signing procedure could not be completed. The counter teller explained to the customer and suggested that the customer go to the bank for follow-up business.
However, the customer believed that the teller was deliberately delaying, and requested the teller to immediately handle and obstruct other customers from handling normal business. While explaining patiently to the customer, the staff contacted the bank equipment maintenance staff to understand the cause of the failure. When they learned that the failure could not be repaired in a short time, they contacted the matching bank branch and asked the bank to give priority to the customer for related business. At the same time, the customer will be sent to the bank in a special car, accompanied by the whole process, and finally satisfied with the customer.
It was also a trading day in March 2015. Ms. Liu requested to quickly redeem the fund of L Fund Company. She planned to use the redemption money to purchase new shares. However, the redemption failed because the L Fund Company’s advancement quota was used up. The fund company's customer service consulted and learned about the situation, and the customer service informed Ms. Liu that because the advances had been used up, they could not process the quick redemption on the day. Ms. Liu stated that due to the failure of the quick redemption, she missed the opportunity to make a new purchase and requested compensation for the contingent loss of 40,000 yuan.
The customer service staff tried to appease Ms. Liu’s emotions and communicated with Ms. Liu several times within three hours, explaining in detail that although the amount of advance payment had been used up that day, he could handle ordinary redemption services, but Ms. Liu refused. After the market closed on the same day, L Fund Company contacted Ms. Liu again, stating that the company had increased the amount of advance funds and could re-apply for quick redemption if necessary. Ms. Liu said that three o'clock had passed and the redemption was meaningless.
In the next few working days, L Fund Company has communicated with Ms. Liu many times and I hope Ms. Liu will understand. In the end, the patience and care of L Fund Company moved Ms. Liu. Ms. Liu no longer demanded compensation for contingent losses, and the dispute was successfully resolved.
Subsequently, L Fund Company adopted a series of improvement measures, including deciding whether to increase the amount of advancement based on the purchase of new shares in the market, arranging special personnel to monitor the use of advancement quota in real time, and sending text messages to notify customers in advance on special times such as new share purchase days and holidays. Funding arrangements make investors feel more considerate service.
Agency transactions are not authorized and internal control is not strict
In January 2013, futures investors Zhang and Chen reported in writing to the Guangdong Bureau that they both opened accounts in the Q futures business department of their jurisdiction in 2011. The accounts are operated and invested by employees of the business department. Several business department employees often check the trend chart , To guide the operation, and said that at this point, selling high and buying low must make money, and the account traded for more than a year and eventually caused a loss.
The Guangdong Bureau checked the Q futures business department. After obtaining account opening information, transaction settlement statements, historical transaction details, deposit and withdrawal details, and transaction system records, etc., they checked and compared the IP address and MAC of the business department computer one by one. Address, did not find the complainant’s report of the business staff's illegal valet operation.
The Guangdong Bureau stepped up inspections and found that both Zhang and Chen's futures trading accounts were managed by their common relative, Tian, who was responsible for deposits and withdrawals and transactions. Tian Mou answered the return visit of the sales department and the margin call. When the Q futures business department knew that Tian was not the owner of the account, it also acquiesced to Tian to trade futures through the accounts of two customers in the on-site trading area of the business department.
According to the "Administrative Measures for Futures Companies" and "Administrative Regulations on Opening Client Accounts in the Futures Market" implemented at that time, customers entrusting others to trade should be agreed in the futures brokerage contract, but none of the above-mentioned customers specified Tian as the "Futures Brokerage Contract". agent.
After the transaction suffered a loss, Zhang and Chen both claimed that the account transaction was not operated by the person who placed the order. They 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 sales department realized that there were deficiencies in internal management and contract management, and took the initiative to compensate customers to a certain extent.
Regarding the problem that the sales department has not reminded the customer of the risks or required it to complete the relevant authorization agent procedures, and has not taken other preventive measures to ensure the safety of the customer’s transactions and assets, the Guangdong Bureau has The business department has adopted regulatory measures to order corrections, order the business department to make corrections within a time limit and hold relevant responsible persons accountable.
The sales department comprehensively sorted out customer account opening information based on existing problems, improved the account opening management system, and replaced the head of the sales department.
System safety is no small matter, emergency response must be appropriate
In October 2013, the central trading system of R futures company in the jurisdiction failed during continuous trading hours, which caused the main trading system to be interrupted and nearly 800 customer transactions were affected.
After the accident, R Futures launched an emergency plan: First, the system developer was immediately contacted to investigate and repair the fault and resume customer transactions. The second is to start the manual emergency order method, and make emergency orders for multiple customers through the emergency telephone hotline. The third is to promptly notify system failures and emergency orders through the SMS platform, company website, and market information system. The fourth is to do a good job of reassurance and explanations for customers, issue letters of apology to investors through the company's website and official Weibo, and monitor public opinion to determine the extent of the impact of the incident. The fifth is to report the accident and its impact to the relevant securities regulatory authority.
After receiving the report, the Guangdong Bureau immediately organized R Futures Company to deal with this information security incident and dispatched 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 error of the operation and maintenance personnel of the R futures company's system, and after the data archiving was found to be abnormal, the abnormality was not checked in accordance with the operating procedures, which caused the centralized trading system to fail to open normally.
According to the inspection of the incident, the Guangdong Bureau took regulatory measures to order corrections to R Futures Company. The R Futures Company is instructed to comprehensively sort out and investigate the problems in the centralized trading system, improve the relevant technical management systems and emergency response mechanisms, and effectively prevent risks. At the same time, the company is required to initiate an internal accountability mechanism.
R Futures Company sorted out and checked 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 compensated customers. In addition, the company initiated an internal accountability procedure, and imposed punishments such as lowering their positions and deducting bonuses against many of the company's senior management and responsible personnel.
Mediation is fair and convincing, fairness and reasoning lead 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 its jurisdiction. His coke contract reached the risk point set by the futures contract on March 10, 2014. At 9:30 on March 10, it was notified by telephone of the margin call. Since Chen did not pursue the insurance in time and did not liquidate the position by himself, the sales department sent a notice of forced liquidation to Chen again at 10:10 on March 10 through a text message, and proceeded to the Chen coke contract at around 10:42. Liquidation, but no transaction due to the lower limit. At around 9:15 on March 11, the sales department once again forced the contract and traded.
Chen believes that the futures business department did not choose the right time for the losses caused by the liquidation and demanded compensation.
With the agreement of both parties, this case will be mediated by the association mediator. In the first mediation, Chen expressed his dissatisfaction with the strong parallel of the futures company and demanded compensation of 120,000 in losses. The futures business department stated that, although the business department's handling of the incident was improper, it complied with the "Futures Brokerage Contract" signed by both parties and the business department could not 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 changes in his position, margin and rights and interests during the process of holding positions, and handle them properly. His own trading positions, and Chen did not fulfill his obligations as investors. Second, the futures business department has notified Chen in advance of the margin call through the China Futures Margin Monitoring Center inquiry system, futures company trading system and futures market quotation system in accordance with the provisions of Articles 28 and 32 of the "Futures Brokerage Contract". In addition, Chen was notified of the margin call by phone and SMS. Third, in accordance with Article 42 of the "Futures Brokerage Contract", the futures company has the right to independently choose the timing, variety, price, and quantity of Chen's open positions to execute forced liquidation.
The mediator further pointed out that although from a service point of view, the business department’s practice of only sending notifications via SMS when requesting the call again and liquidating after the coke contract’s lower limit on March 10 was improper. But because of these service flaws, it is unreasonable to request the sales department to compensate 120,000 yuan. This mediation communication lasted nearly 2 hours. Before the end of the conversation, the mediator suggested that Chen reconsider the compensation claim.
In the next two weeks, during the communication and coordination of the mediator, Chen reduced the compensation amount to 30,000, but the sales department still refused to compensate. Chen said that he would choose legal procedures to resolve disputes. 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 contract terms and notification recordings are beneficial to futures. The sales department, your reasoning alone cannot refute the evidence of the futures sales department, so I hope you will consider it.” Then, the mediator fed Chen's thoughts back to the sales department and prepared to terminate the mediation.
To the surprise of the mediator, Chen called the mediator the next evening, hoping that the mediator would provide a reasonable compensation plan and continue the mediation.
After receiving Chen's request, the mediator carefully sorted out the reasons for the dispute. The mediator believes that although the strong parallel of the business department is in compliance with the "Futures Brokerage Contract", and in accordance with the Supreme People's Court "Minutes of the Forum on Trial of Futures Dispute Cases" and "Provisions on the Trial of Futures Dispute Cases" , The sales department will only be liable for compensation if it fails to fulfill the obligation of notification before the liquidation, but the sales department has the defects of low efficiency and poor service attitude in this incident.
Subsequently, the mediator reviewed a large number of solutions to similar disputes, and finally put forward suggestions for handling: the sales department refunded Chen's handling fees that have been left since opening an account as compensation, and appropriately lowered Chen's future transaction fees. 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 conclusion.
Be cautious in investing in private equity funds and avoid illegal fundraising traps
On September 25, 2014, the public security department received a report from the public that Company S, located in a building in Zhujiang New Town, Guangzhou, was suspected of illegally raising investment funds. The Guangzhou Municipal Public Security Department subsequently launched an investigation and issued a "Letter of Assistance" to the Guangdong Bureau, requesting assistance in identifying the relevant securities business qualifications of S Company.
After investigation, in 2011, the former bank staff Hu Mou registered and established S company in Shenzhen, and in 2013, registered and established Guangzhou branch in Tianhe, Guangzhou. At the beginning of 2013, Hu and Wang, the person in charge of T company, agreed that each time S company would lend a certain amount of funds to T company, the annualized rate of return was 24%, and T company would pay 1/4 of the amount on the day after each loan occurred. The income of the company will then settle interest quarterly until the principal and interest are settled.
Faced with the temptation of huge profits, Hu's greed swelled sharply, and in September 2013, in collaboration with other personnel, he registered and established Shenzhen S Enterprising No. 9 Investment Enterprise (Limited Partnership) (hereinafter referred to as “Entrepreneur No. 9 Private Equity” in the name of S Company Fund"), it was claimed to raise funds in the form of partnership investment and invested in T Company’s "air ticket settlement" project in installments.
Hu and others promote the project to unspecified groups of society, and have raised more than 700 million yuan in total. 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, leading to the incident. Most of the victims in this case were bank customers. The purchase of this product was based on the recommendation and introduction of bank employees, and some were still signing contracts in the bank office area.
According to the request of the public security department, the Guangdong Bureau issued a confirmation opinion after inquiring about the relevant business qualifications: China Securities Regulatory Commission has not approved S Company as the fund manager of publicly offered funds, and the company has not registered with the China Securities Regulatory Commission as a publicly offered fund sales agency . At the same time, S Company and the "Enterprising No. 9 Private Equity Fund" also failed to 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 have not fulfilled their registration and filing obligations in accordance with the law, are larger and have more complaints, the main responsibility of the securities regulatory authority is to cooperate with local governments in cracking down on their illegal and criminal activities in accordance with the law. As of January 2015, the Guangzhou Public Security Department has investigated the suspected illegal fund-raising case of S Company, and arrested 13 suspects in accordance with the law.
Bragging to claim stock god, illegal consultation finally sentenced
At the end of October 2011, the Guangdong Bureau received reports from investors that Fang Mou was suspected of illegally engaging in securities investment consulting activities by publishing QQ groups, blogs and other means to release recommended stock information, solicit members and charge fees.
After receiving the report, the Guangdong Bureau immediately organized staff to conduct an inspection. Upon investigation, Fang and others initially established a technology information company in Zhaoqing to sell computer accessories. Since 2010, Fang has set up a blog through Sina.com, Oriental Fortune.com and other websites, published a large amount of information under the screen name of "Xiaoyao Master", commented on the market trend, recommended stocks, and induced customers to pay RMB 3,800 per set. The price of yuan to buy "stock god analyst" software.
In fact, Fang bought the whole set of software from a company in Shanghai at a low price. The software itself has no effect on stock trading. Once investors purchase this software, they are allowed to join the "Xiaoyao Master QQ Group" and the "Dark Horse Bull Stock Actual Combat Group" to share Fang's so-called "exclusive information and original stock reviews." Fang recommends stocks to the group members every day, and comments on the market and individual stock trends. Investors who join the QQ group also need to pay a software maintenance fee of RMB 360 per 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 software purchase and maintenance fees of about 4 million yuan, and illegally earned more than 3.6 million yuan.
But ironically, Fang, who claims to be "good at capturing sector hotspots and leading stocks", never trades in stocks on weekdays. The content of his recommended stocks is only collected from the Internet daily, not research by Fang and his gang. Results. Investors can get it from stock market analysis and research articles published in the media.
In November 2012, the People's Court of Duanzhou District, Zhaoqing City ruled that Fang was guilty of illegal business operations, sentenced to ten months in prison, suspended for one year, fined 55,000 yuan, and confiscated related illegal proceeds.