The bank has been awarded principal and interest compensation, and employees have misappropriated 8 million shares for trading clients | wealth management | has been awarded compensation
Recently, the Judgment Document Network has disclosed several judgments on disputes over financial entrusted wealth management contracts and recovery rights, revealing the details of a bank employee's embezzlement of customer wealth management funds that occurred many years ago in Lijiang, Yunnan.
It is understood that an employee of the Huaping County Branch of Agricultural Bank of China, Mr. Mu, took advantage of his position and embezzled a total of 8.0432 million yuan of wealth management funds from 40 clients from 2014 to 2020 for his own purchase of stocks, futures, etc. After the incident, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Since 2020, these 40 clients have filed lawsuits against the bank, demanding compensation for principal and interest. The bank believes that Mu's behavior is not related to the bank, and the customer has not fulfilled the minimum duty of care for his significant property transactions. However, the final court ruled that Agricultural Bank of China Huaping County Branch would compensate 40 customers for losses such as principal and interest. And the second instance rejected the bank's appeal and upheld the original verdict.
Employees misappropriate 8 million yuan of wealth management funds from 40 clients
According to the judgment, from 2014 to 2020, Mu, an employee of the Comprehensive Management Department of the Huaping County Branch of Agricultural Bank of China, took advantage of his position to assist and guide customers in the process of purchasing financial products. He revoked the financial products or directly transferred the funds used by these customers to purchase financial products to multiple bank card accounts under his control, using them to purchase stocks, futures, and repay the principal and interest of the funds misappropriated in the early stage.
According to the statement of one of the 65 year old victim clients, Wang, on December 4, 2018, he purchased a wealth management product worth 120000 yuan through the introduction of Mu. In June 2019, he continued to buy 150000 yuan. On March 18, 2020, when he checked with Agricultural Bank of China, he found that he had not purchased any wealth management products twice, and the money was transferred to two accounts controlled by Mu.
It is reported that in the past six years, Mu has embezzled a total of 8.0432 million yuan of funds from 40 clients.
In January 2021, Mu was sentenced to eight years in prison for the crime of misappropriating funds, and four years in prison for the crime of fraud, with a total sentence of twelve years. He was sentenced to eleven years in prison and fined 30000 yuan. After Mu appealed, the second instance ruling upheld the original verdict.
Go to court and the bank is ordered to compensate for principal and interest
The judgment shows that since 2020, these 40 bank clients have successively filed civil lawsuits with the People's Court of Huaping County regarding disputes over financial entrusted wealth management contracts, savings deposit contracts, and property damage compensation disputes, requesting the bank to compensate for the loss of wealth management principal and interest, deposit principal and interest, and other losses caused by Mu's criminal behavior.
In response, the Huaping County Branch of Agricultural Bank of China once argued that Mu's behavior was not an official act, and the legal consequences should not be borne by the bank.
According to the bank's statement, because Mr. Mu has no authority to act as an agent for Agricultural Bank of China to sell so-called wealth management products, it does not constitute any professional behavior. The act of Mu selling financial products to the outside world is entirely his personal behavior and has nothing to do with Agricultural Bank of China. Even if it is believed that Mu's behavior of selling wealth management products at Agricultural Bank of China branches is considered a duty behavior, the legal consequences of such duty behavior should not be borne by Agricultural Bank of China in accordance with the law. In addition, as a person with full capacity for civil conduct, customers should exercise a prudent duty of care in their major property transactions. If they fail to fulfill the minimum duty of care, the damage suffered should not be transferred to Agricultural Bank of China.
The first instance court held that as an employee of the defendant's comprehensive management department, Mu accepted the plaintiff's deposit and processed the deposit procedures for the plaintiff within his scope of authority, and his behavior was considered a duty behavior; Our country has one of the highest storage rates, and the people believe that putting money into the bank is very safe. When Mu handled the bank deposit transfer business for the aforementioned customers, these customers had reason to believe that the defendant's storage business was safe. After accepting the customer's funds, Mu took advantage of his position to misappropriate the funds that should have been deposited into the bank for his own use. His behavior constituted the crime of misappropriating funds, and the object of infringement was not the plaintiff's customer, but the defendant's bank.
The first instance court pointed out that the Huaping County Branch of Agricultural Bank of China, as a savings management institution, failed to fulfill its management and supervision responsibilities to its staff, resulting in the deposit being misappropriated by Mr. Mu for personal use, violating the obligation of financial institutions to ensure the safety of savings deposits. It should bear corresponding legal responsibilities, and its reason that Mr. Mu's behavior is his personal behavior cannot be established. Therefore, the savings deposit contract relationship between the affected customers and the bank is established, and the Huaping County Branch of Agricultural Bank of China should repay the deposit principal and interest of these customers.
It is understood that the People's Court of Huaping County issued 40 civil judgments on November 17, 2021, each ruling that the Agricultural Bank of China Huaping County Branch would compensate 40 bank customers for losses such as principal and interest. After the bank filed an appeal, the second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.
According to the judgment, currently, Agricultural Bank of China Huaping County Branch has uniformly compensated a total of 8.6175 million yuan in principal and interest to 40 bank customers in accordance with the effective judgment mentioned above.
In addition, the court also pointed out that Agricultural Bank of China Huaping County Branch can pursue compensation from Mu and support his lawsuit requesting Mu to compensate him with 8.6175 million yuan in customer principal and interest.
