违反适当性义务并不必然导致基金合同无效
Violation of Suitability Obligations Does Not Necessarily Lead to the Invalidation of the Fund Contract
关键词
Key Words
基金退出、迟延清算、谨慎勤勉义务
Funds Held on Behalf of Others, Suitability Obligations, Invalidation of Contract
裁决要旨
Principle of the award
依据《私募投资基金监督管理暂行办法》等规定，私募基金应当面向合格投资者进行募集。私募基金管理人从事私募基金销售业务,应当恪尽职守、诚实信用、谨慎勤勉，切实履行适当性义务。同样，私募基金从业人员应当遵守法律、行政法规,恪守职业道德和行为规范。从业人员在审核投资者适当性时严重偏离依规、客观审核的标准，将明知并不完全具备相应风险识别能力和风险承担能力的个人招募为投资者，并通过汇集多人资金的形式投资基金产品，变相分拆投资产品，属于违反“卖者尽责”之适当性义务的行为。但该情形被认为违反管理性强制性规定，而不属于行政法规的效力性强制性规定，因此并不当然导致基金合同无效。
（《私募投资基金监督管理条例》2023年6月16日国务院第8次常务会议通过，自2023年9月1日起才开始施行。）
According to the Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Private Investment Funds and other regulations, private equity funds should be raised from qualified investors. Private equity fund management institutions engaged in private equity fund sales business shall abide by obligations of diligence, good faith and prudence, and effectively perform their suitability obligations. Similarly, private equity practitioners should abide by laws, administrative regulations, and abide by professional ethics and codes of conduct. When reviewing the suitability of investors, practitioners deviate from the standard of compliance and objective review in accordance with regulations, recruit individuals who know that they do not fully possess the corresponding risk identification and risk-taking capabilities as investors, and invest in funds by pooling funds from multiple people and split investment products in disguised form, which is a violation of the “Seller’s Responsibility” of suitability obligation. However, this situation is considered to violate the administrative mandatory provisions and does not belong to the effective mandatory provisions of administrative regulations. Therefore, it does not automatically lead to the invalidation of the fund contract.
The Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Private Investment Funds was adopted at the 8th Executive Meeting of the State Council on June 16, 2023, and came into effect on September 1, 2023.
典型意义
Significance
在私募基金合同纠纷案中，很多投资者往往会被私募基金管理人的宣传、承诺所吸引，进行与自身风险识别能力和风险承担能力不匹配的投资，事后发现风险巨大，想要退出投资却遇到困难。本案裁决观点一方面确认了管理人及其从业人员规范销售私募基金产品的投资者适当性义务，另一方面也提醒了广大投资者切勿盲目投资，在签署相关协议前应当了解投资风险，并需要对自己签署的文件材料负责。
In private equity fund contract disputes, many investors are often attracted by the publicity and commitment of private equity fund management institutions and make investments that do not match their own risk-bearing capabilities. Afterwards, they find that the risks are huge and they want to withdraw from the investment but fail. The ruling of this case, on the one hand, confirms the investor suitability obligations of management institutions and their practitioners to regulate the sale of private equity fund products; on the other hand, it also reminds investors should understand the investment risks before signing relevant agreements, and need to be responsible for the documents and materials they sign.
基本案情
Basic Facts
W某系A资产管理公司（本案被申请人）的投融资部总经理，C某（本案申请人）与W某的配偶系朋友关系。20xx年7月，W某的配偶在微信群中号召C某及案外人等一起拼凑300万元用于购买A资产管理公司发布的一号私募基金，称该产品由W某负责销售，保本保收益且可提前赎回。经协商一致后，各方决定由C某出资90万元，案外人等共同出资210万元，各方分别将投资款项汇入C某账户，由C某作为投资人统一将300万元汇入A资产管理公司的募集账户。同时，案外人等与C某签署了《代持协议》。
同年8月，C某与A资产管理公司签署《合伙协议》，经办人为W某。《合伙协议》约定，由C某作为投资人购买A资产管理公司成立的一号私募基金，该基金存续期限为五年，并约定了具体的投资方向。次年2月，一号私募基金在中国证券投资基金业协会备案，类型为“股权投资基金”。根据合同约定，案涉基金应于20xx年3月5日到期。
《合伙协议》签订后的第三年，C某询问W某一号私募基金的投资退出事宜，W某以种种理由没有明确回复。C某通过网络查询后方才得知该项目存在巨大的风险，且为非保本保收益产品。C某立即与A资产管理公司进行协商解决，但双方分歧较大，沟通无任何实质性效果。
W is the general manager of the investment and financing department of an asset management company A (the respondent in this case), and C (the claimant in this case) is a friend of W’s spouse. In July 20xx, W’s spouse called on C and other outsider(s) of the case in the WeChat group to put together 3 million yuan to purchase the No. 1 private equity fund released by asset management company A, saying that the trading activities of the fund was managed by W, therefore, capital and income can be guaranteed and can be redeemed in advance. After reaching consensus, all parties decided that C would invest 900,000 yuan, and the outsider(s) jointly invest 2.1 million yuan. Each party would remit the investment funds to C's account, and C, as the investor, would remit 3 million yuan to the fundraising account of the asset management company A. At the same time, the otsider(s) signed a Share Entrustment Agreement with C.
In August of the same year, C signed a Partnership Agreement with the asset management company A, handled by W. The Partnership Agreement stipulates that C, as an investor, will purchase the No. 1 private equity fund established by the asset management company A with a duration of five years and a specific investment direction is agreed upon. In February of the following year, the No. 1 private equity fund was registered with Asset Management Association of China as an "equity investment fund."
Zhou claimed that after the fund expired, fund management company A has not liquidated the fund as agreed, nor has it timely proposed rights claims on the final investment project in accordance with the principle of diligence and prudence to safeguard the interests of investors.
In the third year after the signing of the Partnership Agreement, C asked W about the withdrawal of investment of No.1 private equity fund, but W did not give a clear reply for various reasons. After searching on the internet, C learned that the project had huge risks and was not a guaranteed income product. C immediately negotiated with the asset management company A to resolve the issue, but the two parties had large differences and the communication had no substantive result.
仲裁请求
Arbitration Claim
C某向上海金融仲裁院提起仲裁，请求裁决确认《合伙协议》无效，并要求A资产管理公司向其返还投资本金及资金占用利息等。
C filed an arbitration with the Shanghai Court of Financial Arbitration, requesting a ruling to confirm the invalidity of the Partnership Agreement, and requiring the asset management company A to return the investment capital and interest on capital occupancy.
被申请人的答辩意见
Respondent’s Reply
A资产管理公司认为其已经履行了适当性义务，通过访谈等方式告知了C某一号私募基金的相关风险，并进行了评估和测试，C某均予以签字认可并出具了资产证明，签署了合格投资者承诺书。因此，C某系合格投资者，《合伙协议》合法有效。
The asset management company A believed that it had fulfilled its suitability obligations and informed C of the relevant risks of No.1 private equity fund through interviews and other methods, and conducted evaluation and testing. C had signed and approved and issued an asset certificate, and signed a qualified investor commitment letter. Therefore, C is a qualified investor and the Partnership Agreement is legally valid.
主要争议焦点
Main Issue of Dispute
A资产管理公司是否履行了投资者适当性义务及《合伙协议》是否无效。
Whether the asset management company A has fulfilled its investor suitability obligations and whether the Partnership Agreement is invalid.
仲裁庭意见
Opinion of arbitral tribunal
关于A资产管理公司是否履行了投资者适当性义务。本案中，A资产管理公司的工作人员W某系私募基金从业人员，其通过配偶向C某及案外人等介绍、推介一号私募基金，并由多方主体共同参与，汇集资金交由C某代持进行投资。W某明知C某出资90万元的认购资金低于合格投资者规定的限额，却主动协助其汇集资金；W某亦明知用拼凑代持资金所作的投资在客观上会导致变相分拆基金产品，却仍为C某办理了相关投资手续，使之成为了一号私募基金的基金份额持有人之一。基于此，仲裁庭有理由认定，A资产管理公司对其从业人员行为的失察或放纵，系管理不善，W某的上述行为应为其职务行为，对外即系A资产管理公司之行为。因此，A资产管理公司向不符合私募基金募集规定的C某销售一号私募基金，使其成为私募基金投资人，其后续的一系列访谈、评估、测试等风险防范行为，仅是徒具形式，属于违反《私募投资基金监督管理暂行办法》等规定的投资者适当性义务之行为。
关于《合伙协议》是否无效的问题。仲裁庭认为，虽然A资产管理公司违反了投资者适当性义务，但本案中其所违反的是相关的管理性规定，而《合伙协议》本身并不存在违反法律、行政法规的效力性、强制性规定或损害社会公共利益的情形。
Regarding whether asset management company A has fulfilled its investor suitability obligations. In this case, W, a staff member of asset management company A, is a private equity fund practitioner. Through his spouse, W introduced and promoted the No. 1 private equity fund to C and the outsider(s), and the funds were pooled and handed over to C on his behalf for investment. W knew clearly that C’s subscription capital of RMB 900,000 was lower than the limit stipulated by qualified investors, but actively assisted C in gathering funds; W also knew that the investment made with the jointly held funds would objectively lead to a disguised split of fund products, but still went through the relevant investment procedures for C, making C one of the fund shareholders of the No. 1 private equity fund. Based on this, the arbitral tribunal has reason to conclude that asset management company A’s negligence or indulgence in the conduct of its practitioners constituted poor management. The above-mentioned behavior of W should be regarded as official behavior, which is the conduct of asset management company A. Therefore, the asset management company A sold the No. 1 private equity fund to C, who did not meet the private equity fund raising regulations, and made C a private equity fund investor, and its subsequent risk prevention behaviors such as series of interviews, assessments, and tests were only a formality, which constitutes a violation of investor suitability obligations stipulated in the Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Privately-Raised Investment Funds and other provisions.
Regarding the issue of whether the Partnership Agreement is invalid, the arbitral tribunal held that although asset management company A violated the investor suitability obligation, what it violated in this case was the relevant administrative regulations, and the Partnership Agreement itself did not violate the validity and mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, or harm the public interest.
裁决结果
Award
对申请人C某据此主张确认《合伙协议》无效的仲裁请求，仲裁庭不予认可。由于申请人上述返还投资款等仲裁请求所赖于依存的基础请求权未获仲裁庭采信和支持，因此，申请人要求返还投资本金及资金占用利息等请求同样不能获得仲裁庭支持。
The arbitral tribunal do not accept the claim of claimant C to confirm the invalidity of the Partnership Agreement. Since the claimant's basic claim right of return of investment funds and other arbitration claims has not been accepted and supported by the arbitral tribunal, the claimant's claims for return of investment principal and interest on capital occupancy cannot be supported by the arbitral tribunal.
案件评析
Case Analysis
评析人：王涌，中国政法大学教授
Wang Yong, professor at China University of Political Science and Law.
本案中，私募基金管理人A未充分履行其应尽的投资者适当性义务，管理人同不符合私募基金募集相关规定的投资者C某订立了购买私募基金的《合伙协议》，投资者据此主张协议无效，仲裁庭未予支持。从《私募投资基金监督管理暂行办法》来看，私募基金应当向合格投资者募集资金，而合格投资者亦有明确的认定标准，故需要私募基金管理人对投资者做全面细致的风险评级。本案最关键的问题在于管理人履行投资者适当性义务的情况能否作为判断合同效力的依据，即系属效力性强制性规定还是管理性强制性规定。
对此，《全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要》（以下简称《九民纪要》）已有讨论。《九民纪要》第三十条认为，在判断强制性规定的规范性质时，应当结合法益类型、违法行为的法律后果以及交易安全保护等多种因素予以考虑。由此，比照相关规范来看，投资者适当性义务并不符合效力性强制性规范的标准 。
投资者适当性义务是一种金融监管的法定要求。适当性义务原为道德义务，又可细分为了解投资者义务、风险提示义务或风险警示义务、适当推荐义务等子义务。《证券投资基金法》《证券公司监督管理条例》《期货交易管理条例》及其他规范性法律文件，将投资者的适当性审查作为基金公司的法定义务，其目的在于要求其不能因逐利而罔顾投资者利益，做出不适当的推介行为。因此，适当性审查义务通常与合同效力无关，其目的在于规范基金公司的销售行为。
通过对适当性义务的违法后果与法益衡量的考察，确定投资者适当性义务是否属于违反效力性规定的规范对象。《关于规范金融机构资产管理业务的指导意见》第六条规定：禁止欺诈或者误导投资者购买与其风险承担能力不匹配的资产管理产品。基金公司不得通过拆分资产管理产品的方式，向风险识别能力和风险承担能力低于产品风险等级的投资者销售资产管理产品。《九民纪要》第七十七条认为，违法投资者适当性义务情节严重的可以认定为民事欺诈行为。同时，拆分销售行为如果存在公开宣传、拆分销售对象众多甚至向不特定人员销售等严重违反非公开发行制度的行为，甚至可以构成《刑法》中的擅自发行股票、公司、企业债券罪，此时违反发行主体和投资标的合规要求破坏了证券发行制度和投资者保护制度的基本金融秩序，属于违反效力性强制规范。有鉴于此，本案所涉的拆分销售基金产品的行为，其合同内容的违法程度需结合拆分销售和投资招揽行为性质进行审查。在本案中，由于W某通过其配偶在微信群招揽C某等投资者的行为并未触及证券发行制度的效力性原则，投资行为本身并不被法律、行政法规所禁止，不是效力性规定的规范对象，不应认定合同无效。
综上，投资者适当性义务的相关规范不一定涉及对基金合同的效力评价，本案中，更宜认定为有关金融市场管理的管理性强制性规范。
In this case, the asset management company A failed to fully perform its investor suitability obligations. The management institution entered into a Partnership Agreement for the purchase of private equity funds with investor C who did not meet the relevant provisions on private equity fund raising. According to this, the investor claimed that the agreement was invalid and the tribunal did not uphold it. Judging from the Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Privately-Raised Investment Funds, private equity funds should raise funds from qualified investors, and qualified investors also have clear identification standards, so it is necessary for private equity fund management institutions to conduct comprehensive and detailed risk ratings for investors. The key issue in this case is whether the asset management company's performance of the investor's suitability obligations can be used as the basis for judging the validity of the contract, that is, whether it is an effective mandatory provision or an administrative mandatory provision.
This has been discussed in the Minutes of the National Courts' Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference (hereinafter referred to as the Ninth Minutes). According to Article 30 of the Ninth Minutes, when judging the normative nature of mandatory provisions, multiple factors such as the type of legal interest, the legal consequences of illegal acts, and transaction security protection should be taken into account. Therefore, compared with relevant norms, the investor's suitability obligations do not meet the standards of effective mandatory norms.
The investor suitability obligation is a statutory requirement of financial supervision. The suitability obligation is originally a moral obligation, and can be subdivided into sub-obligations such as the obligation to understand investors, the risk warning obligation, and the appropriate recommendation obligation. The Securities Investment Fund Law, the Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Securities Companies, the Regulation on the Administration of Futures Trading and other normative legal documents regard the suitability review of investors as a legal obligation of fund companies, with the purpose of requiring them not to disregard the interests of investors and make inappropriate promotion behavior. Therefore, the suitability review obligation is usually unrelated to the validity of the contract, and its purpose is to regulate the sales behavior of the fund company.
By examining the illegal consequences of the suitability obligation and the measurement of legal interests, it is determined whether the investor's suitability obligation is a normative object that violates the validity provisions. Article 6 of the Guiding Opinions on Regulating the Asset Management of Financial Institutions stipulates that it is prohibited to defraud or mislead investors to purchase asset management products that do not match their risk-taking capabilities. Fund companies shall not sell asset management products to investors whose risk identification and risk-taking abilities are lower than the product risk level by splitting asset management products. Article 77 of the Ninth Minutes holds that serious violations of investor suitability obligations can be deemed as civil fraud. At the same time, if the split sales behavior seriously violates the non-public offering system such as public promotion, large number of split sales objects or even sales to unspecified personnel, it may even constitute the crime of unauthorized issuance of stocks, companies, and enterprise bonds in the Criminal Law. At this time, violating the compliance requirements of the issuing subject and the investment target undermines the basic financial order of the securities issuance system and the investor protection system, which is a violation of effective mandatory norms. In view of this, the illegality of the contractual contents of the split sales of fund products involved in this case needs to be reviewed based on the nature of split sales and investment solicitation. In this case, since W’s behavior of soliciting investors such as C through his spouse in the WeChat group did not violate the validity principle of the securities issuance system, the investment behavior itself is not prohibited by laws and administrative regulations, and is not the normative object of the validity provisions, and the contract should not be deemed invalid.
To sum up, the relevant norms of investors' suitability obligations do not necessarily involve the evaluation of the effectiveness of fund contracts. In this case, they are more suitable to be recognized as administrative mandatory norms related to financial market management.
免责重申：本案例系上海仲裁委员会对相关案件进行的整理与编辑，不代表机构观点，不构成法律咨询意见。
Disclaimer: This case is the compilation and editing of relevant cases by the Shanghai Arbitration Commission. It does not represent the views of the institution nor constitute legal advice.
英文版本仅为示例翻译，如中英文版本有任何差异，以中文版本为准。
The English version is a courtesy translation only. If there is any discrepancy between the Chinese and English version, the Chinese version prevails.
往期案例回顾：
SHAC
立案地址
上海市威海路755号上海报业集团大厦7楼 电话：021-52921235
网址：www.accsh.org 邮箱：shac@accsh.org
上海金融仲裁院
上海市东园路18号中国金融信息中心18楼 电话：021-68889201
上海国际航运仲裁院 | 上海知识产权仲裁院
上海市北苏州路88号中美金融信托大厦18楼 电话：021-62681688
上海建设工程仲裁院 | 一般民商事部
上海市威海路755号上海报业集团大厦23楼 电话：021-52920022
Violation of Suitability Obligations Does Not Necessarily Lead to the Invalidation of the Fund Contract
关键词
Key Words
基金退出、迟延清算、谨慎勤勉义务
Funds Held on Behalf of Others, Suitability Obligations, Invalidation of Contract
裁决要旨
Principle of the award
依据《私募投资基金监督管理暂行办法》等规定，私募基金应当面向合格投资者进行募集。私募基金管理人从事私募基金销售业务,应当恪尽职守、诚实信用、谨慎勤勉，切实履行适当性义务。同样，私募基金从业人员应当遵守法律、行政法规,恪守职业道德和行为规范。从业人员在审核投资者适当性时严重偏离依规、客观审核的标准，将明知并不完全具备相应风险识别能力和风险承担能力的个人招募为投资者，并通过汇集多人资金的形式投资基金产品，变相分拆投资产品，属于违反“卖者尽责”之适当性义务的行为。但该情形被认为违反管理性强制性规定，而不属于行政法规的效力性强制性规定，因此并不当然导致基金合同无效。
（《私募投资基金监督管理条例》2023年6月16日国务院第8次常务会议通过，自2023年9月1日起才开始施行。）
According to the Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Private Investment Funds and other regulations, private equity funds should be raised from qualified investors. Private equity fund management institutions engaged in private equity fund sales business shall abide by obligations of diligence, good faith and prudence, and effectively perform their suitability obligations. Similarly, private equity practitioners should abide by laws, administrative regulations, and abide by professional ethics and codes of conduct. When reviewing the suitability of investors, practitioners deviate from the standard of compliance and objective review in accordance with regulations, recruit individuals who know that they do not fully possess the corresponding risk identification and risk-taking capabilities as investors, and invest in funds by pooling funds from multiple people and split investment products in disguised form, which is a violation of the “Seller’s Responsibility” of suitability obligation. However, this situation is considered to violate the administrative mandatory provisions and does not belong to the effective mandatory provisions of administrative regulations. Therefore, it does not automatically lead to the invalidation of the fund contract.
The Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Private Investment Funds was adopted at the 8th Executive Meeting of the State Council on June 16, 2023, and came into effect on September 1, 2023.
典型意义
Significance
在私募基金合同纠纷案中，很多投资者往往会被私募基金管理人的宣传、承诺所吸引，进行与自身风险识别能力和风险承担能力不匹配的投资，事后发现风险巨大，想要退出投资却遇到困难。本案裁决观点一方面确认了管理人及其从业人员规范销售私募基金产品的投资者适当性义务，另一方面也提醒了广大投资者切勿盲目投资，在签署相关协议前应当了解投资风险，并需要对自己签署的文件材料负责。
In private equity fund contract disputes, many investors are often attracted by the publicity and commitment of private equity fund management institutions and make investments that do not match their own risk-bearing capabilities. Afterwards, they find that the risks are huge and they want to withdraw from the investment but fail. The ruling of this case, on the one hand, confirms the investor suitability obligations of management institutions and their practitioners to regulate the sale of private equity fund products; on the other hand, it also reminds investors should understand the investment risks before signing relevant agreements, and need to be responsible for the documents and materials they sign.
基本案情
Basic Facts
W某系A资产管理公司（本案被申请人）的投融资部总经理，C某（本案申请人）与W某的配偶系朋友关系。20xx年7月，W某的配偶在微信群中号召C某及案外人等一起拼凑300万元用于购买A资产管理公司发布的一号私募基金，称该产品由W某负责销售，保本保收益且可提前赎回。经协商一致后，各方决定由C某出资90万元，案外人等共同出资210万元，各方分别将投资款项汇入C某账户，由C某作为投资人统一将300万元汇入A资产管理公司的募集账户。同时，案外人等与C某签署了《代持协议》。
同年8月，C某与A资产管理公司签署《合伙协议》，经办人为W某。《合伙协议》约定，由C某作为投资人购买A资产管理公司成立的一号私募基金，该基金存续期限为五年，并约定了具体的投资方向。次年2月，一号私募基金在中国证券投资基金业协会备案，类型为“股权投资基金”。根据合同约定，案涉基金应于20xx年3月5日到期。
《合伙协议》签订后的第三年，C某询问W某一号私募基金的投资退出事宜，W某以种种理由没有明确回复。C某通过网络查询后方才得知该项目存在巨大的风险，且为非保本保收益产品。C某立即与A资产管理公司进行协商解决，但双方分歧较大，沟通无任何实质性效果。
W is the general manager of the investment and financing department of an asset management company A (the respondent in this case), and C (the claimant in this case) is a friend of W’s spouse. In July 20xx, W’s spouse called on C and other outsider(s) of the case in the WeChat group to put together 3 million yuan to purchase the No. 1 private equity fund released by asset management company A, saying that the trading activities of the fund was managed by W, therefore, capital and income can be guaranteed and can be redeemed in advance. After reaching consensus, all parties decided that C would invest 900,000 yuan, and the outsider(s) jointly invest 2.1 million yuan. Each party would remit the investment funds to C's account, and C, as the investor, would remit 3 million yuan to the fundraising account of the asset management company A. At the same time, the otsider(s) signed a Share Entrustment Agreement with C.
In August of the same year, C signed a Partnership Agreement with the asset management company A, handled by W. The Partnership Agreement stipulates that C, as an investor, will purchase the No. 1 private equity fund established by the asset management company A with a duration of five years and a specific investment direction is agreed upon. In February of the following year, the No. 1 private equity fund was registered with Asset Management Association of China as an "equity investment fund."
Zhou claimed that after the fund expired, fund management company A has not liquidated the fund as agreed, nor has it timely proposed rights claims on the final investment project in accordance with the principle of diligence and prudence to safeguard the interests of investors.
In the third year after the signing of the Partnership Agreement, C asked W about the withdrawal of investment of No.1 private equity fund, but W did not give a clear reply for various reasons. After searching on the internet, C learned that the project had huge risks and was not a guaranteed income product. C immediately negotiated with the asset management company A to resolve the issue, but the two parties had large differences and the communication had no substantive result.
仲裁请求
Arbitration Claim
C某向上海金融仲裁院提起仲裁，请求裁决确认《合伙协议》无效，并要求A资产管理公司向其返还投资本金及资金占用利息等。
C filed an arbitration with the Shanghai Court of Financial Arbitration, requesting a ruling to confirm the invalidity of the Partnership Agreement, and requiring the asset management company A to return the investment capital and interest on capital occupancy.
被申请人的答辩意见
Respondent’s Reply
A资产管理公司认为其已经履行了适当性义务，通过访谈等方式告知了C某一号私募基金的相关风险，并进行了评估和测试，C某均予以签字认可并出具了资产证明，签署了合格投资者承诺书。因此，C某系合格投资者，《合伙协议》合法有效。
The asset management company A believed that it had fulfilled its suitability obligations and informed C of the relevant risks of No.1 private equity fund through interviews and other methods, and conducted evaluation and testing. C had signed and approved and issued an asset certificate, and signed a qualified investor commitment letter. Therefore, C is a qualified investor and the Partnership Agreement is legally valid.
主要争议焦点
Main Issue of Dispute
A资产管理公司是否履行了投资者适当性义务及《合伙协议》是否无效。
Whether the asset management company A has fulfilled its investor suitability obligations and whether the Partnership Agreement is invalid.
仲裁庭意见
Opinion of arbitral tribunal
关于A资产管理公司是否履行了投资者适当性义务。本案中，A资产管理公司的工作人员W某系私募基金从业人员，其通过配偶向C某及案外人等介绍、推介一号私募基金，并由多方主体共同参与，汇集资金交由C某代持进行投资。W某明知C某出资90万元的认购资金低于合格投资者规定的限额，却主动协助其汇集资金；W某亦明知用拼凑代持资金所作的投资在客观上会导致变相分拆基金产品，却仍为C某办理了相关投资手续，使之成为了一号私募基金的基金份额持有人之一。基于此，仲裁庭有理由认定，A资产管理公司对其从业人员行为的失察或放纵，系管理不善，W某的上述行为应为其职务行为，对外即系A资产管理公司之行为。因此，A资产管理公司向不符合私募基金募集规定的C某销售一号私募基金，使其成为私募基金投资人，其后续的一系列访谈、评估、测试等风险防范行为，仅是徒具形式，属于违反《私募投资基金监督管理暂行办法》等规定的投资者适当性义务之行为。
关于《合伙协议》是否无效的问题。仲裁庭认为，虽然A资产管理公司违反了投资者适当性义务，但本案中其所违反的是相关的管理性规定，而《合伙协议》本身并不存在违反法律、行政法规的效力性、强制性规定或损害社会公共利益的情形。
Regarding whether asset management company A has fulfilled its investor suitability obligations. In this case, W, a staff member of asset management company A, is a private equity fund practitioner. Through his spouse, W introduced and promoted the No. 1 private equity fund to C and the outsider(s), and the funds were pooled and handed over to C on his behalf for investment. W knew clearly that C’s subscription capital of RMB 900,000 was lower than the limit stipulated by qualified investors, but actively assisted C in gathering funds; W also knew that the investment made with the jointly held funds would objectively lead to a disguised split of fund products, but still went through the relevant investment procedures for C, making C one of the fund shareholders of the No. 1 private equity fund. Based on this, the arbitral tribunal has reason to conclude that asset management company A’s negligence or indulgence in the conduct of its practitioners constituted poor management. The above-mentioned behavior of W should be regarded as official behavior, which is the conduct of asset management company A. Therefore, the asset management company A sold the No. 1 private equity fund to C, who did not meet the private equity fund raising regulations, and made C a private equity fund investor, and its subsequent risk prevention behaviors such as series of interviews, assessments, and tests were only a formality, which constitutes a violation of investor suitability obligations stipulated in the Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Privately-Raised Investment Funds and other provisions.
Regarding the issue of whether the Partnership Agreement is invalid, the arbitral tribunal held that although asset management company A violated the investor suitability obligation, what it violated in this case was the relevant administrative regulations, and the Partnership Agreement itself did not violate the validity and mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, or harm the public interest.
裁决结果
Award
对申请人C某据此主张确认《合伙协议》无效的仲裁请求，仲裁庭不予认可。由于申请人上述返还投资款等仲裁请求所赖于依存的基础请求权未获仲裁庭采信和支持，因此，申请人要求返还投资本金及资金占用利息等请求同样不能获得仲裁庭支持。
The arbitral tribunal do not accept the claim of claimant C to confirm the invalidity of the Partnership Agreement. Since the claimant's basic claim right of return of investment funds and other arbitration claims has not been accepted and supported by the arbitral tribunal, the claimant's claims for return of investment principal and interest on capital occupancy cannot be supported by the arbitral tribunal.
案件评析
Case Analysis
评析人：王涌，中国政法大学教授
Wang Yong, professor at China University of Political Science and Law.
本案中，私募基金管理人A未充分履行其应尽的投资者适当性义务，管理人同不符合私募基金募集相关规定的投资者C某订立了购买私募基金的《合伙协议》，投资者据此主张协议无效，仲裁庭未予支持。从《私募投资基金监督管理暂行办法》来看，私募基金应当向合格投资者募集资金，而合格投资者亦有明确的认定标准，故需要私募基金管理人对投资者做全面细致的风险评级。本案最关键的问题在于管理人履行投资者适当性义务的情况能否作为判断合同效力的依据，即系属效力性强制性规定还是管理性强制性规定。
对此，《全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要》（以下简称《九民纪要》）已有讨论。《九民纪要》第三十条认为，在判断强制性规定的规范性质时，应当结合法益类型、违法行为的法律后果以及交易安全保护等多种因素予以考虑。由此，比照相关规范来看，投资者适当性义务并不符合效力性强制性规范的标准 。
投资者适当性义务是一种金融监管的法定要求。适当性义务原为道德义务，又可细分为了解投资者义务、风险提示义务或风险警示义务、适当推荐义务等子义务。《证券投资基金法》《证券公司监督管理条例》《期货交易管理条例》及其他规范性法律文件，将投资者的适当性审查作为基金公司的法定义务，其目的在于要求其不能因逐利而罔顾投资者利益，做出不适当的推介行为。因此，适当性审查义务通常与合同效力无关，其目的在于规范基金公司的销售行为。
通过对适当性义务的违法后果与法益衡量的考察，确定投资者适当性义务是否属于违反效力性规定的规范对象。《关于规范金融机构资产管理业务的指导意见》第六条规定：禁止欺诈或者误导投资者购买与其风险承担能力不匹配的资产管理产品。基金公司不得通过拆分资产管理产品的方式，向风险识别能力和风险承担能力低于产品风险等级的投资者销售资产管理产品。《九民纪要》第七十七条认为，违法投资者适当性义务情节严重的可以认定为民事欺诈行为。同时，拆分销售行为如果存在公开宣传、拆分销售对象众多甚至向不特定人员销售等严重违反非公开发行制度的行为，甚至可以构成《刑法》中的擅自发行股票、公司、企业债券罪，此时违反发行主体和投资标的合规要求破坏了证券发行制度和投资者保护制度的基本金融秩序，属于违反效力性强制规范。有鉴于此，本案所涉的拆分销售基金产品的行为，其合同内容的违法程度需结合拆分销售和投资招揽行为性质进行审查。在本案中，由于W某通过其配偶在微信群招揽C某等投资者的行为并未触及证券发行制度的效力性原则，投资行为本身并不被法律、行政法规所禁止，不是效力性规定的规范对象，不应认定合同无效。
综上，投资者适当性义务的相关规范不一定涉及对基金合同的效力评价，本案中，更宜认定为有关金融市场管理的管理性强制性规范。
In this case, the asset management company A failed to fully perform its investor suitability obligations. The management institution entered into a Partnership Agreement for the purchase of private equity funds with investor C who did not meet the relevant provisions on private equity fund raising. According to this, the investor claimed that the agreement was invalid and the tribunal did not uphold it. Judging from the Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Privately-Raised Investment Funds, private equity funds should raise funds from qualified investors, and qualified investors also have clear identification standards, so it is necessary for private equity fund management institutions to conduct comprehensive and detailed risk ratings for investors. The key issue in this case is whether the asset management company's performance of the investor's suitability obligations can be used as the basis for judging the validity of the contract, that is, whether it is an effective mandatory provision or an administrative mandatory provision.
This has been discussed in the Minutes of the National Courts' Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference (hereinafter referred to as the Ninth Minutes). According to Article 30 of the Ninth Minutes, when judging the normative nature of mandatory provisions, multiple factors such as the type of legal interest, the legal consequences of illegal acts, and transaction security protection should be taken into account. Therefore, compared with relevant norms, the investor's suitability obligations do not meet the standards of effective mandatory norms.
The investor suitability obligation is a statutory requirement of financial supervision. The suitability obligation is originally a moral obligation, and can be subdivided into sub-obligations such as the obligation to understand investors, the risk warning obligation, and the appropriate recommendation obligation. The Securities Investment Fund Law, the Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Securities Companies, the Regulation on the Administration of Futures Trading and other normative legal documents regard the suitability review of investors as a legal obligation of fund companies, with the purpose of requiring them not to disregard the interests of investors and make inappropriate promotion behavior. Therefore, the suitability review obligation is usually unrelated to the validity of the contract, and its purpose is to regulate the sales behavior of the fund company.
By examining the illegal consequences of the suitability obligation and the measurement of legal interests, it is determined whether the investor's suitability obligation is a normative object that violates the validity provisions. Article 6 of the Guiding Opinions on Regulating the Asset Management of Financial Institutions stipulates that it is prohibited to defraud or mislead investors to purchase asset management products that do not match their risk-taking capabilities. Fund companies shall not sell asset management products to investors whose risk identification and risk-taking abilities are lower than the product risk level by splitting asset management products. Article 77 of the Ninth Minutes holds that serious violations of investor suitability obligations can be deemed as civil fraud. At the same time, if the split sales behavior seriously violates the non-public offering system such as public promotion, large number of split sales objects or even sales to unspecified personnel, it may even constitute the crime of unauthorized issuance of stocks, companies, and enterprise bonds in the Criminal Law. At this time, violating the compliance requirements of the issuing subject and the investment target undermines the basic financial order of the securities issuance system and the investor protection system, which is a violation of effective mandatory norms. In view of this, the illegality of the contractual contents of the split sales of fund products involved in this case needs to be reviewed based on the nature of split sales and investment solicitation. In this case, since W’s behavior of soliciting investors such as C through his spouse in the WeChat group did not violate the validity principle of the securities issuance system, the investment behavior itself is not prohibited by laws and administrative regulations, and is not the normative object of the validity provisions, and the contract should not be deemed invalid.
To sum up, the relevant norms of investors' suitability obligations do not necessarily involve the evaluation of the effectiveness of fund contracts. In this case, they are more suitable to be recognized as administrative mandatory norms related to financial market management.
（案例提供人：上海仲裁委员会金融院副秘书长刘雯）
免责重申：本案例系上海仲裁委员会对相关案件进行的整理与编辑，不代表机构观点，不构成法律咨询意见。
Disclaimer: This case is the compilation and editing of relevant cases by the Shanghai Arbitration Commission. It does not represent the views of the institution nor constitute legal advice.
英文版本仅为示例翻译，如中英文版本有任何差异，以中文版本为准。
The English version is a courtesy translation only. If there is any discrepancy between the Chinese and English version, the Chinese version prevails.
往期案例回顾：
SHAC
立案地址
上海市威海路755号上海报业集团大厦7楼 电话：021-52921235
网址：www.accsh.org 邮箱：shac@accsh.org
上海金融仲裁院
上海市东园路18号中国金融信息中心18楼 电话：021-68889201
上海国际航运仲裁院 | 上海知识产权仲裁院
上海市北苏州路88号中美金融信托大厦18楼 电话：021-62681688
上海建设工程仲裁院 | 一般民商事部
上海市威海路755号上海报业集团大厦23楼 电话：021-52920022