China Fund Industry Association issued a disciplinary decision on Admiralty Qianhai (Shenzhen) Equity Investment Fund and its legal representative and general manager, pointing out that Admiralty Qianhai Fund promised investors in disguise and failed to perform due diligence obligations.
Previously, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange had made a decision on administrative supervision measures, and the Admiralty Qianhai Fund put forward four defenses, which were rejected and publicly condemned by the association after trial.
1. List the expected annualized rate of return, with the poor at the bottom.
The regulatory policy of prohibiting fund investment from committing to capital preservation has a long history. However, with the "Measures for the Administration of Private Investment Fund Raising" officially clarifying the relevant provisions, some institutions believe that according to the principles of "non-retroactivity of the law" and "lighter punishment for the old", the situations that occurred before this should be treated differently.
Admiralty Qianhai (Shenzhen Stock Exchange) Equity Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Admiralty Qianhai Fund") is an example. According to the information released by the China Fund Association, he pleaded guilty after being punished for promising to protect his capital, but was eventually rejected by the association.
Including Admiralty Qianhai Fund and its legal representative, the Association issued a disciplinary decision, involving illegal facts such as committing investors to protect their capital and income in disguise and failing to perform due diligence obligations. CICC qianhai fund has great differences on the former.
Admiralty Qianhai Fund believes that the expression of "expected income" in the publicity materials of "Qianhai Jinqiao Industrial Fund Phase I Fund" managed by the company is not the same as the promise of "guaranteed income" to investors, and points out that the fund raising period should not be considered illegal until the Measures for the Administration of Private Equity Fund Raising Behavior explicitly prohibits the promotion of "expected income", and that it has indicated relevant risks in the contract.
After trial, the association found that in the publicity materials, "the expected annualized rate of return is 1 1%/ year-16%/ year (before charging)", "the inferior investors (Tenbon Group) guarantee the principal and income of the priority investors with their principal and income" and "the income is stable and the risk is controllable. Moreover, in the complaints received by the association, there are expressions such as "fixed income 1 1%+ floating income", which leads investors to form the expectation of guaranteed income, which misleads investors' decision-making, and constitutes a promise to investors that the principal will not be lost and the minimum income will be promised in disguise.
2. There are obvious contradictions in the performance of the maximum guarantee contract.
Besides promising the minimum income, CICC Qianhai Fund still has some problems, such as failing to follow up the maximum guarantee contract in time for compulsory notarization and failing to take recourse measures against the repurchase obligor and guarantor in time.
However, CICC Qianhai Fund stated that according to the maximum guarantee contract and supplementary agreement, the calculation method of the principal creditor's rights repurchased depends on the operation of Tenbon assets at the time of repurchase, and it is impossible to determine which calculation method to adopt, so it cannot be handled.
Specifically, according to the administrative reconsideration decision, Jinqiao Industrial Fund invested in Shenzhen Jinzhong Qianhai Tenbon 1 Fund Center (Limited Partnership) (hereinafter referred to as "Tenbon 1 Fund"). "Tenbon 1 Fund" invested in the equity of Tenbon assets; Tenbon 1 Fund signed a maximum guarantee contract with Tenbon Group (the chairman and actual controller of Tenbon Group), and Tenbon Group provided joint liability guarantee for Tenbon 1 Fund, and agreed to compulsory notarization of the guarantee contract, but it did not.
For the case that the guarantee constraint under the contract cannot be handled due to other circumstances, the Association pointed out after trial that the parties claimed that the amount of creditor's rights could not be determined for the guaranteed repurchase money, and the parties to the contract did not handle notarization because of disputes over matters that needed notarization. The maximum amount of secured principal creditor's rights stipulated in the maximum guarantee contract is 750 million yuan. There are obvious contradictions in the guarantee that the guarantor shall bear joint liability for the debtor's debts within the maximum amount. This contract shall come into effect from the date of signature by both the creditor and the guarantor, and the creditor and the guarantor agree to carry out compulsory notarization of this contract at the notarization institution designated by the creditor within three working days after the contract comes into effect.
In addition, other behaviors that failed to perform due diligence obligations were explained, involving violations of the letter cover and other matters. Based on the above situation, the Admiralty Qianhai Fund, legal person and general manager were finally disciplined and publicly condemned.