[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, the core focus is on the duty of suitability: it is the legal obligation of sales institutions to sell suitable products to suitable investors. If sales mislead, risk assessments are just a formality, or high-risk products are promoted as stable financial products, the institutions will have to compensate investors for their principal and interest losses if they fail to fulfill their duty of suitability. The burden of proof lies with the selling institutions - if they cannot provide evidence that they have fulfilled their obligations of risk disclosure and notification, they will have to bear the consequences of failing to provide evidence. The three-step process of claiming compensation includes: fixing evidence, filing regulatory complaints, and suing for compensation.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

I lost 20% of my investment when buying funds at the bank counter, but the client manager originally promised "stable wealth management with an annualized return of 5%". On the app, I just clicked a few buttons to place an order, and all the risk assessments were set to default options. During the follow-up calls, the only thing I heard in the recording was "please confirm". Before the new regulations on asset management came into effect, "buyers bear the responsibility for their own losses" was often used by sellers as a scapegoat - all losses were blamed on the market. In fact, the legal balance has long been corrected: sellers should fulfill their responsibilities first, and buyers should bear the responsibility for their own losses second; if the seller fails to fulfill their responsibilities, the losses will not be the sole responsibility of the investor.

II. Key points of contention

First, the content and performance standards of the duty of suitability. Second, the manifestations of misleading sales and the fixation of evidence. Third, the calculation of losses and the scope of compensation. Fourth, the choice of paths for complaints and litigation.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

The first layer concerns the statutory obligations of appropriateness duty: understanding clients (risk tolerance assessment must be conducted truthfully; proxy answers and misleading selections are defects), understanding products (risk level, structure, and fees must be fully disclosed), and risk matching (product risk level must not exceed client tolerance level; exceeding the limit constitutes a violation). Explanation of obligations: maximum loss risk, redemption rules, and fee structures must be explained in a way that ordinary people can understand, rather than simply listing clauses in the contract. The Supreme People's Court's "Nine Civil Notes" establish the basic rule that "if a financial consumer suffers losses due to a seller's failure to fulfill appropriateness obligations, the seller shall compensate." This rule reverses the passive situation where investors "hold all the evidence." The second layer focuses on common forms of misleading and evidence: verbal promises of guaranteed returns ("this is just like deposits"; "if you lose, it's my responsibility") – bank counter video recording and customer service recordings are key evidence; falsified risk assessments (sales staff filling in or selecting answers for clients) – assessment records and operation logs can be restored; exaggerated returns and concealed risks in promotional materials – sales pitches, WeChat posts, and screenshots from Moments; misleading comparisons (funds vs. deposits, treasury bonds); and superficial follow-up confirmations – conflicting records between follow-up calls and contract signing times expose institutional defects. Investors should: immediately fix evidence of the sales process (chat records, call recordings, promotional materials, and requests for video recordings), and document all communication with institutions after losses. The third layer defines compensation scope: principal and interest for failure to fulfill appropriateness obligations – interest calculated based on benchmark rates for similar deposits; principal losses based on actual investment; punitive damages for fraudulent practices (fictitious products, forged signatures) referencing the Consumer Rights Protection Law; and partial loss cases requiring separation of market systemic declines from misleading sales – institutional responsibility does not equal full compensation, but "blaming the market" defenses often fail in cases without risk matching. The fourth layer outlines litigation strategies: 1. Submit written complaints to sales institutions (retain complaint and response records for litigation preparation). 2. Report to regulatory channels – Financial Regulatory Bureau's 12378 hotline and CSRC's 12386 hotline, with regulatory opinions serving as key evidence. 3. Negotiate settlements (institutions often willing to compensate to avoid regulatory pressure and litigation). 4. File lawsuits against sales institutions (banks, securities firms, third-party sales platforms), with management personnel added as defendants as needed. Jurisdiction and case types follow financial entrusted asset management contract disputes or property damage compensation disputes, subject to current regulations. Litigation focuses on reversing the burden of proof: requiring institutions to submit complete evidence of video recordings, risk assessments, follow-ups, and disclosure statements, with adverse consequences for failure to provide evidence.The fifth level, anti-trap checklist: Before purchasing a product - Conduct a thorough risk assessment (based on your actual situation, do not let the client manager do it for you); Verify the product code on official channels (to prevent fraudulent transactions and counterfeit products); Do not easily believe in verbal promises (everything shall be subject to a written contract); Complete the dual-recording process (this is the lifeline for future claims); After purchasing - Pay attention to net value fluctuations and redemption rules; If there are any abnormal situations, promptly inquire in writing and keep records; The time window for protecting rights in financial consumption is sensitive, so it's better to fix the evidence as early as possible.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to secure evidence: archiving the application for dual-recording retrieval, chat records, promotional materials, and evaluation and feedback records. The second step is to file complaints in a tiered manner: filing complaints with the institution and simultaneously contacting the regulatory hotline, with written records kept. The third step is to initiate precise litigation: focusing on the duty of suitability and the reversal of the burden of proof, and quantifying losses in a systematic manner. The fourth step is to review and avoid pitfalls: completing the full suitability process before making future purchases. Main legal basis: - Articles of the Seventh Edition of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China related to breach of contract and infringement; - Provisions on investor protection in the Securities Law of the People's Republic of China; - Articles 72 to 77 of the "Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the 'Memorandum on Civil and Commercial Trial Work of National Courts'"; - The Measures for the Management of Suitability for Securities and Futures Investors. Specific application shall be subject to the currently effective provisions.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Advice

The three key points of fund claims are: the seller should fulfill its due diligence obligations first, and the buyer should bear the responsibility for its own actions secondly. The obligation of suitability is the guiding principle for accountability; the burden of proof lies with the institution. If it cannot provide the results of the dual-record evaluation and follow-up assessments, it will lose the case; the principal and interest are the basic foundation, and fixed evidence should be obtained through a combination of regulatory supervision and litigation. For fund claims and financial disputes, you can seek help through the following channels:\nFinancial capital and cross-border transactions involving foreign entitiesThe service obtains an overall solution, and the part involving the accountability for breach of contract can be integrated into it.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesFor plates, you can refer to the claims settlement and evidence sorting for referenceSpecialised legal servicesFor reference, the sections related to enforcement of claims and tracing of assets are as follows:Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcement cases板块。

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: I filled out the risk assessment myself. Can I still file a claim?

Yes. The evaluation is just one part of the appropriateness process. If there are misleading elements in the promotion and explanation stages, the institution will still be held accountable for its responsibilities.

Q2: How can I prove the verbal promise of guaranteed principal and returns?

The dual-recording at the counter, call recordings, chat records, and promotional materials are all evidence. You can submit a written request to the institution and regulatory authorities to retrieve the dual-recording data.

Q3: If the institution says the loss is due to market factors, what should we do?

The defense of causality relies on the institution to provide evidence; if there is no risk matching and misleading sales, the defense of market fluctuations is usually not accepted by the court.

Q4: Is it useful to file a complaint through the regulatory channels?

It's useful. The regulatory process will create compliance pressure that promotes settlement, and the handling opinions and responses are also important evidence in litigation.

Q5: Who will be listed as the defendant in the lawsuit?

The sales agency is the first defendant. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the fund manager may be added as a defendant, and the claim may be pursued either under the contract breach or infringement route.

The above content is based on the 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 facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, so as 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 open 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 case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.