[Direct answer]It is possible to protect one's rights. If the risk tolerance assessment is misled or operated on behalf of the investor, it constitutes a typical violation of the seller's obligation of appropriateness by the selling institution. According to Article 28 of the "Supervision and Administration Measures for Wealth Management Business of Commercial Banks" (Decree No. 6 of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, implemented on September 28, 2018), commercial banks shall evaluate the risk tolerance of non-institutional investors and shall not mislead investors or operate on their behalf during the risk tolerance assessment to ensure that the assessment results are true and effective; Article 29 requires that commercial banks may only sell wealth management products with a risk rating equal to or lower than the investor's risk tolerance rating to investors. According to Articles 72 and 74 of the "Memorandum on Civil and Commercial Trial Work of the National Court" (November 8, 2019), the selling institution shall bear the liability for compensation if the financial consumer suffers losses due to the seller's failure to fulfill the obligation of appropriateness, and the seller shall bear the burden of proof for whether it has fulfilled the obligation of appropriateness. Investors may claim compensation for losses based on this; if there is fraud, they may also claim to rescind the contract and return the property in accordance with Article 148 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (implemented on January 1, 2021).

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

Risk assessment is a preliminary step for selling financial products with high risk levels, but it is often overlooked in practice. Typical scenarios include: sales personnel filling out questionnaires on behalf of clients and selecting high-risk options; suggesting or guiding clients to modify their answers to pass the suitability test; selling products without conducting risk assessments; promoting transactions even when the assessment results clearly do not match the product's risk level; and repeatedly conducting assessments until the results meet the sales requirements. When handling such disputes in Beijing, the authorities will review whether the assessment process is genuine and whether the selling institutions have fulfilled their suitability obligations, and then allocate responsibilities and determine the burden of proof accordingly.

II. Key points of contention

First, whether the falsification of evaluation constitutes a violation of the duty of suitability. Second, how the burden of proof is distributed between the two parties. Third, how to determine the investor's own responsibility. Fourth, how to determine the scope of losses and the causal relationship. Fifth, the choice of path to claim compensation and to request revocation. Sixth, the connection between regulatory complaints and civil litigation.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

Based on Henglue Lawyer's practical experience in handling cases related to the protection of financial consumers' rights and interests, such issues typically revolve around three points. First, the determination of breach of obligations: Evaluation fraud and proxy operations that distort evaluation results, leading to the sale of high-risk products to unqualified investors, constitute a breach of the obligation of appropriateness. Relevant sales documents and audio/video recordings can be used as evidence. Second, the burden of proof: Selling institutions should bear the burden of proof that they have fulfilled their obligations of understanding clients, understanding products, and ensuring appropriateness. Simply obtaining the client's signature confirmation is generally insufficient to exempt them from liability. Third, liability and remedies: Those who breach the obligation of appropriateness and cause losses should bear compensation liability. The losses are typically based on the principal loss and consider the causality and the fault of both parties. Investors may also exercise the right to rescind the contract based on fraud claims, but they must exercise the right of rescission within the statutory time limit. In practice, timely fixing evaluation records and evidence of the sales process is the key to asserting rights.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action list: First, retrieve and preserve the risk assessment questionnaires, sales audio and video recordings, and contract documents as soon as possible; Second, organize the chat records and witness information guided and filled in by sales personnel; Third, file a complaint with the bank or financial regulatory authorities and keep the records; Fourth, calculate the principal loss and retain the transaction details; Fifth, consult professional lawyers in time to determine the feasible path of compensation and revocation; Sixth, pay attention to the statute of limitations and the revocation right period, and assert rights in time. For matters involving financial consumer rights and investment disputes, you can refer to the relevant provisions.\nFinancial capital and cross-border transactions involving foreign entitiesFor disputes involving product sales contracts, the parties may resolve them through negotiation or arbitration.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesColumn; for reference on the recovery and enforcement of fundsCreditor's rights and debts, and enforcementLegal basis: Articles 28 and 29 of the "Supervision and Management Measures for Wealth Management Business of Commercial Banks" (effective as of September 28, 2018); Articles 72 and 74 of the "Memorandum of the National Court's Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference" (effective as of November 8, 2019); Article 148 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (effective as of January 1, 2021). The specific application shall be subject to the currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

Firstly, review fraud is a typical case of failure to fulfill the obligation of suitability, and investors should not waive their right to claim just because they have signed the agreement. Secondly, the selling institution bears the burden of proof for having fulfilled its obligation of suitability, and investors should actively request the institution to provide sales records. Thirdly, compensation for losses must be based on the loss of principal and the causal relationship, and transaction receipts should be preserved in their entirety. Fourthly, there is a time limit for exercising the right of revocation, and investors should assert their rights in a timely manner after knowing or should have known the grounds for revocation. If you are currently facing similar problems, you can seek help through the following channels:\nFinancial capital and cross-border transactions involving foreign entitiesYou will receive a comprehensive solution for the service, and if there are any contract disputes, we can assist you in resolving them.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesFor plate-related matters involving the recovery of funds, you can refer to the relevant information for reference.Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcement.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If the risk assessment was filled out by someone else, can I seek legal protection?

Yes. According to Article 28 of the "Supervision and Management Measures for Wealth Management Business of Commercial Banks", commercial banks are not allowed to mislead investors or operate on their behalf during the risk tolerance assessment process. If the assessment results are distorted due to proxy filling, it violates the obligation of suitability, and if unsuitable investors are sold products that do not match their needs, investors can claim compensation for losses in accordance with Article 72 of the "Memorandum of the National Court's Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference".

Q2: Who will provide evidence of the review fraud?

The burden of proof mainly lies with the selling institutions. According to Article 74 of the "Minutes of the National Court Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference", the selling institutions bear the burden of proof regarding whether they have fulfilled their obligation to sell appropriate products to suitable financial consumers. Investors should provide evidence of the facts such as purchasing products and suffering losses, and may apply to retrieve audio and video recordings and evaluation records of the sales process.

Q3: Can I demand full compensation if the review is fraudulent?

It's not necessarily the full amount. If the selling institution fails to fulfill its obligation of suitability and causes losses, it shall bear the liability for compensation, but the court will determine the compensation ratio based on the causality and the fault of both parties. If the investor knowingly purchases the product despite the risks, his/her own fault may result in a corresponding reduction in compensation. The specific amount shall be determined based on the loss of principal, transaction records, and the degree of fault.

Q4: Can I claim to rescind the contract or just demand compensation?

The investor may choose one or combine both claims. If there is fraud in the sales process, the investor may claim to rescind the contract and return the property in accordance with Article 148 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China; if it is merely a lack of suitability obligations, the investor may claim compensation for losses in accordance with Article 72 of the Jiushi Jihua. The evidentiary requirements and consequences of the two approaches are different, and the choice should be based on the available evidence.

Q5: Should I file a complaint first or directly sue when protecting my rights?

It is recommended to file a complaint first and prepare for litigation at the same time. You can first file a complaint with the bank or financial regulatory authorities, and keep the records of acceptance and response, which will help to clarify the facts and fix the evidence, and may also facilitate a negotiated settlement. Filing a complaint does not affect the subsequent assertion of rights through mediation, arbitration, or litigation. If the negotiation fails, you should sue in time to avoid exceeding the statute of limitations.

The above content is based on the compilation of judicial practices in the Beijing area. The facts of individual cases and the jurisdiction of the court may affect the conclusions. Welcome to consult Henglu Law Firm for specific cases.

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

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on current laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is provided 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.