[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, whether the bank can be required to compensate for fund losses depends on whether the bank has fulfilled its duty of suitability, rather than the losses themselves. According to Articles 72 to 77 of the "Memorandum on Civil and Commercial Trial Work of National Courts" (issued on November 8, 2019), if the selling institution fails to fulfill its obligations of understanding the client, understanding the product, risk matching, and providing explanations, resulting in investors purchasing unsuitable products, it shall compensate investors for their principal losses; according to Article 577 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (effective from January 1, 2021), a party who violates contractual obligations shall bear compensation liability. If the bank has standardized dual recording, assessment matching, and fully disclosed risks, the losses shall generally be borne by the investors themselves. For reference\nCross-border financeColumn.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

Such disputes often occur in several situations: First, depositors originally wanted to buy deposits or stable wealth management products, but were guided by wealth management managers to purchase high-risk funds with the argument of "higher returns". Second, risk assessments were filled in or ticked by others in a way that did not match the actual situation, but they were still recommended high-end products. Third, sales staff exaggerated the benefits, downplayed the risks, and even promised that "there would be hardly any losses". Fourth, elderly investors did not understand the nature of the products and went through the signing process just for formalities. Fifth, the bank's dual-recording process was not standardized, and it was impossible to reconstruct the recommendation process afterwards. When the Beijing Municipal Court tried such cases, the authenticity of the dual-recording materials and risk assessment questionnaires was often the first hurdle. For disputes involving financial contracts, reference can also be made to the relevant provisions of the Financial Securities Law.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesColumn.

II. Key points of contention

Focus One: The content of the obligation of appropriateness includes four aspects: understanding the client, understanding the product, appropriate matching, and providing explanations and notifications. The absence of any of these aspects may constitute a failure to fulfill obligations. Focus Two: The degree of explanation and notification should not only require investors to sign risk disclosure documents, but also should be sufficient to demonstrate that the risks have been fully disclosed. Audio and video recordings can better reconstruct the actual process. Focus Three: The causality and determination of losses are typically based on the loss of principal. Focus Four: Investors' own faults, such as providing false income information or concealing investment experience, may result in a reduction of the compensation ratio. Focus Five: The liable parties, such as the selling bank and fund manager, may share responsibilities according to the degree of their faults. Focus Six: Compensating the bank for losses does not equate to rigid redemption, but rather represents the allocation of responsibilities after the seller has fulfilled their due diligence obligations. Specific provisions shall be subject to the currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

From the practical experience of lawyers handling financial consumer disputes at our firm, the deciding factor of success or failure lies in evidence. In the judicial practice of the Beijing area, the court focuses on reviewing the following aspects: first, whether the dual-recording process is complete, and whether there are audio and video recordings of the promotion process and whether the sales pitches are exaggerated; second, whether the evaluation questionnaire is filled out by the investor himself, and whether the risk tolerance level matches the product risk level; third, whether the sales documents are standard, and whether there are misleading statements such as "stable" and "guaranteed"; fourth, whether the bank has remedial measures after the investor suffers losses. Common risk points include: investors turning deposits into funds and not paying attention for a long time, missing the opportunity to claim; only signing the agreement but not keeping the audio recordings of the promotion pitches; being evaded by the bank with the excuse of "already signed and confirmed" when complaining to the bank. Lawyers usually apply to the bank to retrieve the dual-recording materials and the full process records of the transaction, and compare them with the regulatory rules item by item to find sales defects. If it is confirmed that the bank failed to evaluate, filled in the evaluation on behalf of the investor, or made untrue sales pitches, there is a strong basis for claiming compensation for the principal loss; conversely, if the sales are compliant, the court tends to respect the investment results and let the investor bear the risks himself.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action recommendations: 1. Immediately contact the bank to request access to the dual-recording and transaction records, and keep the purchase receipts, product manuals, and copies of evaluation questionnaires. 2. If you have objections to the sales practices, first file a complaint with the bank and retain a written response. 3. If no agreement can be reached, report the matter to financial regulatory authorities or file a lawsuit directly. 4. In litigation, focus on providing evidence around the four key aspects of suitability obligations, and if necessary, request the court to order the bank to submit the dual-recording materials. 5. Note the three-year statute of limitations, which begins from the date you knew or should have known that your rights were infringed. Legal basis: - The *Measures for the Management of Suitability for Securities and Futures Investors* (effective July 1, 2017) systematically stipulates the suitability obligations of business institutions. - Articles 72 to 77 of the *Notes on the Work of Civil and Commercial Trials of the National Court* clarify the compensation liability and burden of proof distribution for sellers who fail to fulfill their suitability obligations. - Article 577 of the *Civil Code of the People's Republic of China* provides the general basis for breach of contract compensation. For related procedural details, please refer to the relevant materials.Special services and other casesColumn.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Risk Warning: Firstly, the fund's own losses do not mean that the bank is responsible. The focus should be on whether there are any violations in the sales process. Secondly, the bank holds the double-recording and evaluation materials. It is necessary to apply for retrieval as soon as possible to avoid their loss. Thirdly, investors' signature confirmation on the materials cannot automatically exempt the bank from its obligations, but they should not fabricate facts to make claims. Fourthly, once the statute of limitations expires, the right to win the lawsuit will be lost. It is recommended to seek advice as soon as possible.Beijing Henglu Law FirmOn the official website, in the corresponding column, lawyers evaluate the strength of the evidence and then decide on the path to protect rights.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can the bank compensate me if I lose money on a fund?

It depends on whether the bank has fulfilled its obligation of suitability. If there are circumstances such as failing to conduct risk assessments, filling out questionnaires on behalf of investors, exaggerating returns, misleading sales, or missing dual recording, according to Articles 72 to 77 of the "Memorandum on Civil and Commercial Trial Work of the National Court", the bank shall bear the liability for compensation for the investors' principal losses; if the sales are compliant, risk-matched, and the risks are fully disclosed, the losses shall generally be borne by the investors themselves. Whether the investor can obtain compensation depends on the evidence of the sales defects, rather than the amount of the losses itself.

Q2: What evidence do I need to provide to the bank?

The core evidence includes: purchase receipts and product contracts, risk assessment questionnaires, dual-recording audio and video (which can be requested from the bank), chat records or audio recordings of sales pitches, bank complaint and response records, and account transaction histories. You should also organize your own risk tolerance status at the time to prove that the product is not suitable for you. The more evidence that can reconstruct the sales scene, the stronger your claim will be.

Q3: How much does it cost to litigate such cases?

The subject matter of such lawsuits is the principal invested by the fund. The case acceptance fee is charged in stages according to the subject matter, and the winning party shares the fee proportionally; the attorney's fee is negotiated based on the complexity of the case and the subject matter, with no uniform standard. If it can be proven that the bank failed to fulfill its duty of suitability, the plaintiff may claim compensation for the principal loss and corresponding interest. It is recommended to first organize the evidence, assess the strengths and weaknesses, and then decide whether to hire a lawyer.

Q4: How long does a lawsuit typically take?

The first-instance ordinary procedure generally concludes within six months, and the simplified procedure is even faster. The bank's evidence, appraisal, or appeal will prolong the time, and the second-instance procedure takes about three months. The key evidence and the audio-visual record materials are held by the bank. Applying for retrieval and preservation as soon as possible can shorten the cycle. Overall, the process usually lasts between half a year and a year, depending on the intensity of the litigation between the two parties.

Q5: What should I do first after the fund suffers a loss?

The first step is to secure evidence: request the bank to retrieve the dual-recording and evaluation records, and keep the contracts, receipts, and communication records. The second step is to formally file a complaint with the bank and retain the written response. The third step is to report the complaint to the financial regulatory authorities if the complaint is unsuccessful. The fourth step is to evaluate the lawsuit within the three-year statute of limitations and provide evidence regarding the obligation of suitability. The fifth step is to rationally assess the outcome and refer to relevant cases for reference.\nCross-border financeThe column is evaluated by professional lawyers.

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

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 current effective 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. In the event of a dispute, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.