[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, liability is usually divided according to the proportion of fault on both sides, rather than being entirely borne by one party. Financial institutions selling asset management products have the obligation to understand their clients, understand the products, sell appropriate products to suitable investors, and fully disclose the risks. If the sales institution induces or assists investors to falsify risk assessments, evade the requirements for qualified investors, or fails to fully disclose the risks in order to facilitate the transaction, even if the investors commit fraud in the assessment, the institution may bear corresponding compensation liability for failing to fulfill its suitability obligations; if the investors themselves falsify the assessment or conceal the truth, the court will usually determine that they themselves have fault and thus bear part of the losses themselves. Therefore, the key lies in whether the institution has fulfilled its responsibilities, who initiated the fraud, and the causal relationship between the losses and the fault.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

In order to purchase high-yield private equity products, some investors actively select options that exceed their own tolerance levels, while others complete the assessment under the "guidance" of sales staff or even have the assessment filled out on their behalf by sales staff. After the product suffers losses, both parties hold different opinions: the institution believes that the assessment results were signed by the investors themselves, and the losses should be borne by them; while the investors believe that the institution sold the products to them despite knowing that their risk tolerance was insufficient, and should compensate them. The core of such disputes is whether the obligation of suitability has been fulfilled properly.

II. Key points of contention

First, the specific content and judgment criteria of the obligation of appropriateness; Second, the identification and consequences of investors' own faults; Third, who should bear the burden of proof, and whether regulatory provisions tend to protect investors; Fourth, how to divide the proportion of responsibility; Fifth, how to determine the causal relationship between product losses and defects in appropriateness.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

The first layer, the suitability obligation includes four basic requirements. The seller institution shall understand the investor's identity, property and income status, risk preference and tolerance, understand the risk level of the products and services, sell suitable products to suitable investors, and fully disclose the risks and explain the product characteristics to investors. The above obligations are statutory requirements, and investors cannot be exempted from them just by signing the risk disclosure document.

The second layer is that investors who commit fraud will bear the corresponding responsibilities themselves, but this does not necessarily exempt institutions from their obligations. If the evaluation is filled out by investors themselves, the court may determine that they were aware of the risks but still invested voluntarily, thereby reducing the institution's liability; but if the fraudulent process was induced and assisted by the institution, or if the institution knew that the investors did not meet the conditions but still sold the products and failed to properly disclose risks and conduct follow-up visits, the institution may still bear the main responsibility. Therefore, "fraudulent evaluation" is not a shield for institutions to evade liability.

The third layer is that the allocation of the burden of proof has a significant impact on the outcome. Regulatory rules typically require sellers to bear the burden of proof for their fulfillment of suitability obligations, including client information, risk assessments, product risk levels and matching situations, risk disclosures, and double-recorded follow-up calls. If institutions fail to keep records as required or are unable to provide valid records, they are often presumed to have failed to fulfill their obligations. Henglue Law Firm advises that investors should claim to retrieve the aforementioned materials as soon as possible, and institutions should maintain complete records of the entire sales process.

Fourthly, relief pathways and responsibility sharing. Investors can assert their rights by filing complaints and reports with regulatory authorities, initiating civil litigation, and requesting institutions to compensate for losses within the scope of their fault; the court will determine the proportion of responsibility based on the degree of fault of both parties. Henglue Law Firm reminds investors that before seeking legal protection, they should fix promotional materials, chat records, evaluation documents, follow-up recordings, and transfer receipts, and explain the causal relationship between product losses and the institution's fault to avoid difficulties in obtaining support due to insufficient evidence.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

First, investors should complete the risk assessment honestly, without falsifying or letting others fill it out on their behalf. Second, they should keep promotional materials, communication records, assessment documents, and follow-up recording. Third, they should request the institution to provide records of the entire sales process and verify whether the institution has fulfilled its suitability obligations. Fourth, they can claim compensation through complaints, reports, or litigation, and share the losses according to the proportion of fault. Fifth, the institution should standardize the dual-recording and leave traces to ensure that the product risk level matches the investor's tolerance. Main legal basis: Article 3, Article 10, Article 25, and Article 29 of the "Measures for the Management of Appropriateness for Securities and Futures Investors"; Articles 1165 and 1173 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China"; and the specific application shall be subject to the currently effective provisions.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

Three key points regarding review fraud: The obligation of appropriateness is a statutory obligation, and review fraud cannot automatically exempt institutions from liability; it is crucial to identify who initiated the fraud. Investors who falsify information must bear corresponding responsibility; the selling institution has the burden of proof to demonstrate due diligence. If there is no evidence of the sales process, it is easy to presume that the institution failed to fulfill its due diligence obligations. For cases involving financial capital and cross-border transactions, legal remedies may be available through relevant channels.\nFinancial capital and cross-border transactions involving foreign entities.The service provides a comprehensive solution, which can be combined with contract effectiveness and dispute resolutionBusiness and contract disputes in enterprisesFor more information on the recovery of funds, please refer to the relevant section.Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcementFor the column, if you need a comprehensive solution, please feel free to consult usSpecial servicesTeam.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If there are losses after the evaluation is falsified, can investors demand that the institution compensate them in full?

Generally, it is not possible to demand full compensation. If the fraud was committed by the investor himself, and he himself is at fault, he needs to bear the corresponding part of the responsibility; but if the institution induces or assists in the fraud, and fails to fulfill the obligations of risk disclosure and follow-up visits, it may bear the main responsibility, and the court will ultimately determine the responsibility according to the proportion of fault of both parties.

Q2: What evidence is needed to claim compensation?

This includes product promotion and introduction materials, risk assessment and qualified investor commitment documents, sales communication records, follow-up and dual-recording materials, contracts and transfer certificates, as well as product net value and loss accounting materials. If necessary, the court may be requested to obtain the full sales process records from the institution.

Q3: How much is the attorney's fee for this type of case?

It is usually charged based on the proportion of the disputed amount or a fixed fee. When it involves retrieving sales records, calculating net worth, or conducting appraisals, the workload and costs will increase accordingly. It is recommended to first assess the fulfillment of the suitability obligation and the causality, and then determine the litigation target and the amount of the claim.

Q4: How long does it take from filing a lawsuit to receiving compensation?

The first-instance trial generally takes several months. If it is necessary to retrieve materials from institutions, conduct loss calculations, or involve appeals, the period will be even longer. To increase the probability of winning the case, investors should fix the evidence as soon as possible and analyze the fulfillment of the suitability obligation before the lawsuit.

Q5: The agency said that the evaluation was signed by me and had nothing to do with them. What should I do?

It is possible to require institutions to provide risk disclosures, double-recording of follow-up calls, and product matching records to prove whether they have truly fulfilled their suitability obligations. If the institution fails to leave a record or there is inducement to fill out the form on behalf of the client, its defense will be difficult to succeed; at the same time, complaints and reports can be made to the regulatory authorities to promote the identification of their violations of regulations.

The above Q&A is mainly based on the judicial practice in Beijing. There may be differences in the adjudication standards in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Financial capital legal services·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and public adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.