【作者】 刘婷；

【导师】 李爱年；

【作者基本信息】 湖南师范大学 ， 法律硕士（法学）（专业学位）， 2021， 硕士

【摘要】 近年来,金融机构违反适当性义务的案件呈现高发态势,某支行与岳某某及某公司营业信托纠纷案作为湖南省内该批营业信托纠纷系列案中第一个受审案件,引发广泛关注。该案中某支行以承诺“保本保息”等方式向投资人岳某某推荐了某公司虚构的信托理财产品,岳某某基于对银行的信任与某公司签订了《委托认购合同》并支付了信托资金,后因某公司将信托资金挪作他用,致使全部信托产品无法兑付,某公司相关负责人被公检机关以集资诈骗罪等立案侦查,投资人岳某某为了收回信托本金及利息遂将某公司及某银行诉至法院。该案争议焦点为:第一,该案是否应当适用“先刑后民”的审理模式;第二,某支行的行为是否适当;第三,某支行是否应当赔偿岳某某的全部损失。首先,从审理模式角度分析,该案不符合“先刑后民”模式的三个适用条件,即该案并非同一自然意义上的事实本身触犯了民事法律与刑事法律,刑事案件与民事案件两者责任主体不完全一致,刑事案件的审理结果可完全独立于民事案件,因此,该案不适用“先刑后民”模式审理。其次,从某支行行为的适当性角度分析,某支行以承诺“保本保息”等方式向投资人推荐信托理财产品的行为违反了金融机构的适当性义务,存在不当。最后,从某支行责任承担角度分析,若将金融机构适当性义务视为法定义务,违反该义务应承担缔约过失责任、侵权责任,其赔偿范围包括直接及间接损失。若将金融机构适当性义务视为约定义务,违反该义务应承担违约责任,赔偿范围包括既有损失及预期利益损失。该案中某支行违反了适当性义务,岳某某主张的全部本金及利息并未超过前述两种赔偿责任的赔偿范围且无损失折抵的情形,因此,某支行应当赔偿岳某某的全部损失。该案暴露了我国在处理金融机构违反适当性义务案件中的问题:程序上,“先刑后民”审理模式在此类案件中被严重滥用,实体上,金融机构适当性义务的立法层次较低,内容规定不明、赔偿数额及范围规定不清。因此,要不断完善“先刑后民”审理模式的适用条件,提高金融机构适当性义务的立法层级、明确金融机构适当性义务的内容、厘清违反金融机构适当性义务的法律责任,以此推进我国法治的发展。更多还原

【Abstract】 In recent years,the cases of financial institutions violating the appropriateness obligations show a high incidence.As the first trial case in the series of business trust disputes in Hunan Province,the business trust dispute between a branch and Yue and a company has aroused widespread concern.In this case,a sub branch recommended a company’s fictitious trust financial products to the investor Yue by promising to "protect the principal and interest".Yue signed a trust plan entrusted subscription contract with a company based on his trust in the bank and paid the trust funds.Later,because a company did not use the trust funds for the purchase of the trust plan,it misappropriated them for other purposes,As a result,all the trust products could not be cashed.The legal representative and main staff of a company were investigated by the public prosecution for the crime of fund-raising fraud and illegal absorption of public deposits.In order to recover the trust capital,the investor Yue sued a company and a bank to the court.The main points of contention in this case are: first,whether the case should apply the "criminal procedure prior to civil procedure" trial mode;Second,whether it is appropriate for a branch to recommend trust wealth management products to investors in a manner that promises "break-even interest";Third,whether a branch should compensate Yue XX for all the losses.From the point of view of the trial mode,the case does not meet the three applicable conditions of the "criminal procedure prior to civil procedure" model,that is,the case is not the same natural sense of the fact itself violated the civil law and criminal law,the criminal case and the civil case of the two subjects of responsibility are not completely consistent,the outcome of the criminal case can be completely independent of the civil case,therefore,the case does not apply to the "criminal procedure prior to civil procedure" mode of trial.During the trial,the branch’s defense requesting the suspension of the civil case on the grounds that the case should be applied to the "criminal procedure prior to civil procedure" was a deliberate delay.From the point of view of the appropriateness of the behavior of a branch,it is improper for a branch to recommend trust financial products to investors in the form of a commitment to "Guaranteed capital and interest ".From the point of view of a branch’s liability,if the financial institution’s suitability obligation is a legal obligation,a sub branch should bear the liability for contracting fault and tort,and the scope of compensation includes direct loss and indirect loss.If it is an agreed obligation,a branch should bear the liability for breach of contract,and the scope of compensation includes the existing loss and the expected interest loss.In this case,a sub branch violated the obligation of appropriateness,and the total principal and interest claimed by Yue did not exceed the compensation scope of the above two kinds of compensation liability,and there was no case of loss offset.Therefore,a sub branch should compensate Yue for all the losses.The case exposed the problems in dealing with the cases of financial institutions’ violation of appropriateness obligation in China: in the procedure,the mode of "criminal procedure prior to civil procedure" is seriously abused in such cases;in the entity,the legislative level of appropriateness obligation of financial institutions is low,the content is unclear,and the amount and scope of compensation are unclear.Therefore,it is necessary to constantly improve the applicable conditions of the mode of "criminal procedure prior to civil procedure",improve the legislative level of the appropriate obligations of financial institutions,clarify the content of the appropriate obligations of financial institutions,and clarify the legal responsibility for violating the appropriate obligations of financial institutions,so as to promote the development of the rule of law in China.更多还原