Break even contract is covered by false seal? Employees lose more than 20 million yuan in stock speculation on behalf of customers

category:Finance
 Break even contract is covered by false seal? Employees lose more than 20 million yuan in stock speculation on behalf of customers


On the same day, Tianjin Securities Regulatory Bureau also announced a similar punishment for Guojin securities employees to manage financial affairs on behalf of customers. The employee also did not profit from the securities trading, but the regulator will not reduce the penalty. Two employees of Zheshang securities and Guojin securities were supervised and fined 300000 yuan and 150000 yuan respectively.

According to the administrative penalty letter, from November 26, 2014 to March 15, 2017, Su Haiming was the general manager assistant of Zhejiang securities Jiangsu branch. During this period, he violated the rules and made two financial transactions on behalf of customers.

However, Su Haiming did not make profits in the end, but caused losses. In more than one year, Su Haiming used the customer account to buy a total of 30.1 million yuan, sold a total of 28.29 million yuan, and lost 670000 yuan.

The second is from December 28, 2015 to December 27, 2016, Su Haiming signed an investment advisory agreement with Jin Xiaohua, who entrusted Su Haiming to manage his securities account. Through the supplementary agreement, the two revised the investment advisory agreement, which does not guarantee the principal security of Jin Xiaohua, to guarantee the security of principal.

According to Jiangsu securities regulatory bureau, the three seals on the investment advisory agreement, namely, the special seal for investment advisory business agreement of Zheshang securities, the seal of legal representative and the seal of Nanjing Daguang Road Business Department of Zheshang securities were all forged, and there were many nonstandard or even capital preservation clauses in the investment Advisory agreement and the supplementary agreement. The above-mentioned agreement is actually Jin Xiaohua and Su Haiming Entrusted financial management agreement signed by individuals.

During the term of the agreement, Su Haiming used Jin Xiaohua securities account to buy and sell China Life Insurance, svetuxin, Haide control, Furen pharmaceutical and other stocks. As of December 27, 2016, the purchase amount was 474 million yuan, the sales amount was 406 million yuan, and the loss was 22.307 million yuan.

Minimum guarantee is a trap

Accepting clients entrustment to speculate in stocks or manage financial affairs on behalf of customers has always been a prohibited item in the securities industry, but it has appeared repeatedly in the industry and has not been banned for many times.

Coincidentally, on November 24, Tianjin Securities Regulatory Bureau also announced a similar punishment for employees of Guojin securities to manage financial affairs on behalf of customers. During the period from December 2017 to January 2018, Liu Zhengyi, an employee of Guojin securities, purchased securities through a mobile phone under the Zhao xjie securities account. Liu Zhengyi accepted Zhaos entrustment to buy and sell securities, but did not actually obtain income share or reward.

Liu Zhengyi pleaded that there was no illegal income and related income in the relevant account, and requested to reduce the amount of fine. However, this was rejected by the securities regulatory bureau. According to the regulations, Tianjin Securities Regulatory Bureau gave Liu Zhengyi a warning and imposed a fine of 150000 yuan.

From the perspective of investors, it is often more difficult to claim for compensation in the case of financing for customers. How should investors avoid the pit when they entrust speculating on behalf of customers? Shen Zhou of Guangdong Huashang law firm said that the operation mode of stock speculation on behalf of clients is essentially a kind of securities business activity that requires franchise qualification. The company has entered into a contract on stock speculation on behalf of clients with clients beyond its business scope, which is invalid due to violation of the mandatory provisions of the law. Even if the relevant subject has the qualification, it is impossible to make a commitment to guarantee the minimum value in the stock speculation on behalf of customers. Shen Zhou suggested that investors should be vigilant to avoid falling into the trap of minimum guarantee commitment, and sign a written entrustment agreement as far as possible to clarify the rights and obligations of both parties. Editor: Zhu Shaoyong source: Shanghai Securities News Author: Sun Yue editor in charge: Zhong Qiming_ NF5619

From the perspective of investors, it is often more difficult to claim for compensation in the case of financing for customers. How should investors avoid the pit when they entrust speculating on behalf of customers?

Shen Zhou of Guangdong Huashang law firm said that the operation mode of stock speculation on behalf of clients is essentially a kind of securities business activity that requires franchise qualification. The company has entered into a contract on stock speculation on behalf of clients with clients beyond its business scope, which is invalid due to violation of the mandatory provisions of the law.

Editor: Zhu Shaoyong