What's wrong with this lawyer?!

"Therefore, it should bear the responsibility of failure to provide evidence."

...

The court investigation concluded; we now move to the stage of courtroom debate.

Old Tang fired another salvo, "As the underwriter of the fund in question, Bright Bank has formed a sales contract with our party based on the principle of relativity in contracts."

In layman's terms, risk assessment is something the bank does, and now you tell me there's a problem with your risk assessment, and I should go to the fund company? That's a joke.

"Furthermore, having only the standard terms and internal risk evaluation documents does not prove that Bright Bank has fully complied with its obligation to disclose risks..."

The core of Old Tang's argument was that, given such high risk, the bank only provided a generic risk warning document, failing to list even the maximum possible risks associated with the investment. This clearly contravened the principle of fairness and equality in contracts, resulting in a significant imbalance of rights and obligations.

Moreover, if you claim my client is a "balanced" investor, you must produce the actual evaluation questionnaire used at the time, along with the standards you use to classify clients as 'conservative' or 'balanced'.

Not just show up with an internal rating document and call it a day.

The reason you don't dare to produce these is obvious; the initial evaluation was just a formality.

Producing evidence would turn into a weapon against yourself.

So, since you haven't provided this evidence, you have to bear the responsibility for the failure to produce it.

Director Ding frowned. It seemed like Tang Fangjing was quite familiar with this matter.

Financial contracts can't be signed lightly; it's a piece of advice. However, neither can such a contract alone prove that you've fulfilled your disclosure obligations.

The audience was stirred by these words, as this has always been a criticized issue.

Banks, in an effort to sell more financial products, often treat these evaluations as mere formalities. Even with the "dual recording," it's just salespeople instructing customers one by one.

They'll tell you to simply answer "I have understood in detail" or something to that effect, while customers say they are buying financial plans, but in reality, they don't understand those things.

This is when you, the bank, need to clarify everything.

So, previously, Old Tang did not know exactly whom this dual recording system was protecting. The investors themselves needed to be more vigilant and not easily swayed by a few persuasive words.

"In conclusion, Bright Bank actively recommended financial products to our party that did not match the risk assessment and also failed to disclose important information and investment risks of the fund in question effectively."

"By failing to fulfill its obligation of full disclosure, violating the principles of honesty, credit, and due diligence, Bright Bank should bear responsibility for the losses suffered by our party."

This is actually a dilemma, much like property management in a community.

Property management is profit-driven, and in the same way, bank salespeople make money through the sale of financial products; naturally, the more they sell, the better.

High-risk financial products also mean high revenue for the bank; everyone wants to sell more of them.

The risk disclosure is deliberately left vague—after all, as long as the product is sold, it's fine.

That's why Old Tang argued that the bank violated the principles of honesty, credit, and due diligence. They should have honestly disclosed the details of the fund, clearly listing all the associated risks.

But they did not. Normally, there might be no way to hold them accountable, but in a courtroom, they definitely need to bear responsibility.

Director Ding also began his rebuttal, but he soon started to repeat himself.

Mainly because the only evidence he could produce was the risk disclosure notice and the customer's risk rating. So, he could only stick to that, repeating over and over that they had fulfilled their disclosure obligation.

Finally, the Judgment Chief interrupted Director Ding's words.

"The courtroom debate is concluded."

"Does the plaintiff have anything to add? Okay, this session is now in recess."

No further questions were asked of the defendant; the Judgment Chief worried about the defendant possibly starting to ramble again.

The court session ended without an immediate verdict. Old Tang packed up and left directly.

This case could not be judged by the Judgment Chief alone; it had to be discussed by the presiding judge, even the head of the court and the judicial committee.

The waiting time began again, with judges occasionally calling to ask about certain details.

Gradually, Old Tang came to understand the court's inclination—at least this time they leaned towards the investor!

Just as in the Consumer Rights Protection Law, where the consumer is the weaker party, investors are also vulnerable when facing the bank as the distributor and various fund companies.

Many people run to buy financial products after hearing a few words, driven by claims like "If you don't manage your wealth, the wealth won't manage you."

When one party doesn't understand anything, the other party must certainly inform them properly. Now, since you can't provide evidence that you've fulfilled your disclosure obligations, it's only right that you bear the responsibility.

Online, many financial lawyers, investors, internet influencers, and bank employees argued fiercely over this case.

Each group stuck to their own views, insisting that the other party should bear the responsibility.

Ten days later, the Jingzhou Intermediate Court reopened the proceedings.

It was determined that Bright Bank indeed failed to fulfill its duty of appropriate disclosure.

According to the "Guidelines on the Suitability of Securities Investment Fund Sales," clauses 31 and 32, fund sales organizations are prohibited from selling products to investors that do not match their risk-bearing capability against their will.

If an applicant voluntarily purchases financial products beyond their risk rating, confirmation must be made at the same time as subscription.

However, considering that Wu Youhua had made multiple investments, she should be aware of the match between investment products and her own risk tolerance. Therefore, she should also bear some responsibility.