Financial Supervisory Service “Woori Bank unfair solicitation judgment”… 25th Sanctions Trial
(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Kim Nam-kwon, Reporter Kim Yeon-sook = Interest is focused on the background that the Financial Supervisory Service notified the CEO of Woori Bank of a tougher discipline than the head of Shinhan Bank in relation to the Lime Asset Management Fund, which called for a massive redemption stop .
Incomplete sales of Lime Funds are a common reason for both banks, but it is known that Woori Bank’s violation of unfair solicitation, which Shinhan Bank does not have, has affected the difference in sanctions.
[권도윤 제작] Photo composition/illustration
According to the financial authorities on the 7th, the Financial Supervisory Service recently sent a notice of sanctions based on the results of inspections by Woori Bank and Shinhan Bank, a Lime Fund seller.
Woori Financial Group, Son Tae-seung, who was the head of Woori Bank during the Lime crisis[316140] The chairman was notified of the amount of suspension from his job and a censure warning to Shinhan Bank President Jin Ok-dong.
Although both suspension of work and warning of censure are severe disciplinary actions that limit employment in financial companies for 3 to 4 years, Chairman Son was notified of a sanction that is one level higher than that of Jin Haengjang.
Some analysts have analyzed whether “problem offense” has been applied to Chairman Son’s filing an administrative lawsuit against the severe disciplinary action of the Derivatives and Combined Fund (DLF), but the Financial Supervisory Service is drawing a line saying that the level of disciplinary action is different. .
Looking at the disciplinary level of the incomplete seller, Woori Bank was notified of the dismissal and Shinhan Bank of the suspension.
Based on this, the level of disciplinary action for the supervisors, Son and Jin, was also determined. This is because the disciplinary action against the supervisor is one level below the actor.
In Woori Bank, unlike Shinhan Bank, violations of unfair solicitation were additionally considered when raising sanctions.
Article 49 of the Capital Market and Financial Investment Business Act prohibits unfair solicitation. Prohibitions include reporting false information, providing assertive judgment on uncertain matters, or reporting content that may be misrecognized as certain, and continuing solicitation of investment after an investor has rejected it.
An official from the financial authorities said, “In the case of Woori Bank, it was decided to include only high-grade bonds in the investment proposal, but the problem is that non-rated bonds were incorporated,” he said. “Unfair solicitation goes into criminal penalties and punishes more heavily.”
Whether Woori Bank continued to sell its products even after it was aware of the Lime Fund’s insolvency in advance, it is expected to be an issue of sanctions.
Woori Bank strongly denies prior recognition, but it is heard that the Financial Supervisory Service has determined that Woori Bank has recognized the possibility of insolvency.
Woori Bank stopped launching new Lime Fund products on April 9, 2019.
Some argue that Woori Bank continued to sell the funds reserved for fees until April 30, even though it recognized the fund’s insolvency for a month before the launch was stopped.
Woori Bank said, “On April 9, 2019, it is very obvious that no supervisory authorities or the media had ever raised a problem with Lime.” “Amid the intensification of fund sales, there are opinions on various internal risks. Rather, we decided to stop launching new products from the standpoint of thinking about customer protection once more.”
[박은주 제작] Photo composition/illustration
As in the case of the DLF sanctions trial, fierce battle between the FSS and the selling bank is expected over whether the CEO can even punish the CEO due to inadequate internal control.
The Financial Supervisory Service has a logic that it can impose sanctions on the management based on the laws and enforcement decrees on the governance structure of financial companies that’we must create effective internal control standards’.
Until now, selling banks have argued that the provisions of the law mean’financial companies should establish standards for internal control’, but are not a direct basis for imposing sanctions on management in the event of a financial accident.
The sanctions hearing against Woori Bank and Shinhan Bank is scheduled to be held on the 25th of this month.
[email protected] [email protected]
Unauthorized reproduction-redistribution prohibited>
2021/02/07 06:10 sent