[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, whether investors can claim compensation when the yield of structured deposits is zero depends on whether the bank fulfilled its obligations of suitability and risk disclosure, as well as the product design and contractual agreements. Structured deposits typically embed financial derivatives transactions on the basis of deposits. The principal of such deposits is generally protected by deposit guarantees, but the yield is linked to the performance of the underlying asset and is subject to fluctuations. A zero yield may be a contractual stipulation in the product design. If the bank failed to fully disclose the uncertainty of returns and the risk of zero returns during the sales process, failed to assess investors' risk tolerance, or engaged in illegal practices such as misleading sales or promising returns, investors can claim that the bank breached its obligations of suitability and disclosure and demand corresponding compensation. However, if the bank fully disclosed the risks and investors were aware of them and purchased the product voluntarily, a zero yield generally falls within the market risks that investors should bear and it would be difficult to seek compensation. Therefore, the key to determining whether compensation can be claimed lies in evidence: sales documents, risk disclosure letters, product brochures, audio and video recordings, and communication records may all serve as important materials to determine whether the bank fulfilled its obligations.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

The number of disputes over structured deposits, where the actual returns fall short of expectations or even turn out to be zero due to fluctuating yields, is gradually increasing. There are three typical scenarios: First, investors only focus on the advertised maximum returns and fail to pay attention to the risk of uncertain returns; Second, banks fail to fully explain the underlying assets and return structures during sales; Third, banks may promise guaranteed returns or induce investors with insufficient risk tolerance to purchase such products. When handling such cases in Beijing, the court will review whether the bank fulfilled its obligation of suitability and risk disclosure, and whether the investor was aware of the risks. Understanding the investor's suitability obligations and the key points of evidence can help investors determine whether they can claim rights when the returns are unsatisfactory.

II. Key points of contention

First, the product nature and risk characteristics of structured deposits. Second, the content of banks' suitability obligations and disclosure obligations. Third, whether a zero return constitutes an agreed-upon scenario. Fourth, the identification of sales misrepresentation and promised returns. Fifth, the burden of proof and the scope of compensation. The core issue is to review the zero return within the framework of suitability obligations and risk assumption, and to determine whether investors can claim compensation based on whether the bank fulfilled its duties and whether investors were aware of the risks.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

From a practical perspective, whether investors can claim compensation when the yield of structured deposits is zero requires analysis from three aspects: the nature of the product, the bank's obligations, and investors' understanding. Structured deposits are typically based on deposits and embedded derivative transactions linked to interest rates, exchange rates, gold, or indices. The principal is generally protected by deposit insurance, but the yield is uncertain, and a zero yield may be a normal result stipulated in the product terms. Therefore, investors cannot automatically claim compensation from the bank simply because the yield did not meet their expectations. The key lies in whether the bank fulfilled its obligations of suitability and disclosure: including understanding investors' risk tolerance, recommending products that match their needs, fully disclosing the uncertainty of returns and the risk of zero returns, truthfully explaining the product structure and fees, and not making promises of guaranteed returns or engaging in misleading marketing. If the bank failed to fulfill its obligations, investors can claim corresponding compensation from the bank; if the bank fully disclosed the risks and investors purchased the product voluntarily after understanding the risks, they should generally bear the market risks themselves. For evidence, product sales documents, risk disclosure letters, product brochures, dual-recording materials, and communication records are key evidence to determine whether the bank fulfilled its obligations. If necessary, investors can request to retrieve relevant sales process materials. It should be noted that the burden of proof for the obligation of suitability typically falls heavily on financial institutions, and investors should fix relevant documents and records as soon as possible to protect their own rights and interests.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action suggestions: First, read the product manual and risk disclosure document carefully before purchasing, paying attention to the profit structure and the underlying assets; Second, keep the sales documents, double-recorded materials, and communication records; Third, check whether the bank has assessed the risk tolerance and recommended products that match it; Fourth, if you believe that the bank has not fulfilled its duty of suitability or there is misleading, fix the evidence in time to assert your rights; Fifth, if no agreement can be reached, you can claim corresponding compensation through litigation. For matters involving financial capital and cross-border transactions, you can refer to the relevant provisions.\nFinancial capital and cross-border transactions involving foreign entities.For matters involving contract terms and liability determination, you may refer to the following documents for reference:Business and contract disputes in enterprisesLegal basis: The provisions on contracts and liability for damages in the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021), as well as the current regulatory provisions on the protection of financial consumers' rights and interests and the wealth management business of commercial banks. The specific application shall be subject to the currently effective laws, regulations, and regulatory provisions.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Firstly, the yield of structured deposits fluctuates, and a zero yield may be a contractual outcome. Secondly, if the bank fails to fulfill its obligations of suitability and disclosure, it may bear compensation liability. Thirdly, promising guaranteed principal and yield is an illegal practice. Fourthly, the sales documents and video recordings are crucial for the determination of the case. Those involved in financial disputes can seek legal assistance through the following channels:\nFinancial capital and cross-border transactions involving foreign entitiesThe service acquisition, which involves contract and liability determination, can be combined with other aspects.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesFor matters involving the enforcement of compensation, you may refer to the following for reference.Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcement casesColumn.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can I claim compensation if the yield on structured deposits is zero?

It depends on the specific circumstances. If the bank fails to fulfill its obligation of adequacy and risk disclosure or engages in misleading behavior, investors can claim compensation; if the bank has fully disclosed the risks and the investors purchase the products voluntarily, they generally need to bear the market risks themselves.

Q2: Are structured deposits guaranteed to be safe?

Generally, the principal portion is protected by deposit insurance, but the returns are uncertain. A zero return may be a normal outcome stipulated in the product terms, and the specific details should be referred to the product documents.

Q3: What should I do if the bank didn't inform me of the risks involved?

It can be argued that the bank failed to fulfill its obligation to provide explanations. It is necessary to collect product manuals, risk disclosure documents, and video recordings to prove whether the risks were fully disclosed during the sales process.

Q4: Is the bank's promise of guaranteed returns effective?

The promise of guaranteed principal and returns is an illegal sales practice. Investors can hold the bank accountable for its responsibilities based on this, but they need to provide corresponding evidence to support their claims.

Q5: What evidence do I need to prepare?

The product brochure, risk disclosure document, sales documents, dual-recording materials, communication records, and earnings certificates should be preserved, so as to facilitate the determination of whether the bank has fulfilled its obligations and the amount of losses.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The adjudication guidelines in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

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

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on current laws and regulations and publicly available 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 a timely manner.