Bank employees withdrawn from customer pre -order financial management without authorization. Who will be responsible?丨 Vote for teaching 121

21st Century Business Herald reporter Bian Wanli intern Han Wenrong Beijing report

Investment goes on the right way, security is guaranteed, welcome to "Investment 121". I am a chestnut editor and take you to understand interesting and practical financial knowledge.

Zhao Kun was once a bank staff member. From 2014 to 2020, he misappropriated the wealth management or savings funds of forty bank customers and transferred more than 8 million yuan to his own accounts. Butinity of funds. However, it was not until the incident that some bank customers found that the funds that had been said to be good for financial management were actually not used to buy the corresponding products at all.

Which link is something wrong, and 40 customers have fallen into the investment trap? What can Zhao Kun use the method of "moving flowers and flowers", can he hide the sky and transfer the huge sums of money to more than 8 million customers directly to others' accounts?

The 21st Century Business Herald chose some legal documents related to the case announced in 2022, combined with the experience of related bank customers, analyzed this case, and talked to everyone. As investors, we should pay attention to what we should pay attention to.

Rejected the pre -order application, and the purchase of wealth management into a "fake action"

From 2018 to 2019, Li Jian, Peng Jun and Zhang Ju three bank customers have purchased wealth management products at the Agricultural Bank of China Huaping County Sub -branch through pre -ordering and subscriptions under the guidance of Mu Rong Shen. More and 150,000. After the business was completed, Zhao Kun wrote the calculation method and amount of product income on the successful return of the pre -order.

At this point, all three customers thought they had successfully purchased wealth management products.

However, things are not so simple. Zhao Kun subsequently transferred the corresponding amount from the customer's account to the account name of the other person's account, which was used to purchase financial management and repayment by the customer's account.

Similar methods, different customers, Zhao Kun has misappropriated 40 customers' deposits in this way, totaling more than 8 million until the incident.

The bank does not accept the responsibility, and deny that the employee constitutes an agent

As a result, the customer filed an appeal. The court was tried to judge the principal and interest of the relevant customers by the Agricultural Bank of China Huaping County Sub -branch. However, the Huaping County Sub -branch of the Agricultural Bank of China expressed dissatisfaction and filed a appeal again. The Agricultural Bank of China believes that the yield of financial products promised by Zhao Kun to Li Jian and others is higher than the earnings of the wealth management products of Agricultural Bank of China. Zhao Kun has no right to act as agricultural banks to sell the so -called wealth management products, and its behavior does not constitute a job. Even if Zhao Kun's behavior of selling wealth management products at the Agricultural Bank of China is a job, the legal consequences of this job should not be borne by the Agricultural Bank of China.

Regarding the case of Li Jian and Peng Jun, the Agricultural Bank of China Huaping County Sub -branch also specifically proposed that Li Jian and Peng Jun are not good at good people. On the contrary, there are major faults when handling the transfer business -two customers have not properly kept their ID cards, Passwords, bank cards, even "important reminders", "police prompts", and even voice prompts when handling business when handling business. The counter, artificial counter, and the 95599 customer service hotline provided by the Agricultural Bank of China query its results of the super counter operation. Therefore, the Agricultural Bank of China believes that Zhao Kun's behavior is not set up an agent.

What does the agency emphasized when the agricultural banks emphasize? Is Zhao Kun's behavior belonging to duty or personal behavior? Should the Agricultural Bank of China be responsible for the loss of a series of customers?

These issues are the key to the judgment of this series of cases.

Customers have no fault, and the bank's point of view has been rejected

Seeing an agent refers to the act of a third party that the third party is sufficient to believe that no agent has the right to have an agent, and gives this trust and improving legal acting with the right to act as a legal act.

Article 172 of the Civil Code stipulates that the agency actor does not have an agency right, transcending agency rights, or the termination of agency rights, and still implements agency behaviors. The opposite person has reasons to believe that the actor has agency rights, and the agency behavior is valid.

One of the constituent elements of the agent is that the transaction counterpart must be goodwill and no fault. The Agricultural Bank of China was trying to pass this constituent element, indicating that the relevant customers were not goodwill and no fault, which proved that Zhao Kun would not set up an agent, and the Agricultural Bank should not be responsible.

In this regard, the court believes that Zhao Kun, as a staff member of the Huaping County Sub -branch of the Agricultural Bank of China, handles the financial wealth management product business operated by the Agricultural Bank of China Huaping County Sub -branch in office space and office hours. In handling the financial management business and finishing, Zhao Kun's behavior is in line with the characteristics of the agent, which constitutes an agent.

Zhao Kun used his position to handle the wealth management business for customers, and adopted the method of withdrawing after the purchase of the purchase to transfer the principal of the customer to buy wealth management products into the account controlled by it. Regarding Zhao Kun's principal of buying wealth management products, related customers did not know, let alone cooperate, lost their losses, there was no major negligence, and no subjective intention.

In the end, the court judged it as a financial contract dispute between the financial product entrusted wealth management products between the Huaping County Sub -branch of the Agricultural Bank of China and the relevant customers. Zhao Kun's act of performing his duties constituted an agent. The civil legal consequences arising from this is that the principal and interest loss of relevant customers shall be liable for compensation by the Agricultural Bank of China Huaping County Sub -branch. In addition, the court in the first instance sentenced Zhao Kun to the crime of misappropriation of funds for eight years in prison, sentenced to four years in prison for fraud, twelve years in total sentence, decided to implement 11 years in prison and fined 30,000 yuan. The original judgment was maintained in the second instance. What are the issues to pay attention to pre -ordering wealth management products?

It seems that the successful pre -order does not mean that everything is good, and customers can wait for income. What alarm can the case ring for investors?

On the one hand, it depends on bank staff or acquaintances, and investors should carefully confirm the transaction situation after purchasing wealth management products. For example, check the accounts of the payer, the account name, and transfer amount, and query its operation results through the customer service hotline provided by the super counter, artificial counter, and banks.

On the other hand, some wealth management products provide withdrawal options. Especially for open wealth management products, investors can purchase or redeem during each legal working day, within the prescribed transaction hours. But the revocation of wealth management products also left the opportunity to drill emptiness like Zhao Kun. Customers continue to pay attention to the whereabouts of the funds after purchasing for a period of time, ensure the success of the product purchase and run at the start point at the agreed time.

(The names in the case are a pseudonym)

Investment is walking, "Investment 121" is updated daily ... Welcome to continue to pay attention!

(Coordinating: Ma Chunyuan)

- END -