Xin Lang Zheng Quan·2025-07-17 11:06Core Viewpoint - The case highlights a dispute over high commission fees charged by a brokerage firm, with the court ruling in favor of the brokerage, stating that the fees were within regulatory limits and that the investor's claims of fraud were unfounded [1][3]. Summary by Sections Case Background - The plaintiff, a long-time investor, filed a lawsuit against a brokerage firm, alleging that the high commission fees were fraudulent. The court found that the brokerage's fees were compliant with regulatory standards [1][2]. Commission Fee Discrepancies - The plaintiff was charged a commission rate of 2.5‰ for several years, while new investors were charged a significantly lower rate of 0.6‰ starting in 2016. The plaintiff claimed this constituted price discrimination and fraud [2][3]. Court Rulings - The first-instance court ruled that the commission agreements were valid and that the fees charged were within the regulatory cap of 3‰. The court also noted that commission adjustments typically require investor initiation, which the plaintiff did not do until later [3][5]. - The appellate court upheld the initial ruling, stating that the brokerage acted within legal and contractual bounds, and dismissed the plaintiff's claims of excessive fees and fraud as lacking factual and legal basis [3][5]. Industry Context - The case reflects a broader issue in the securities industry where many investors remain unaware of lower commission rates available to new clients, leading to claims of being "taken advantage of" by their brokers [4][5]. - Similar cases have been reported, indicating that disputes over commission fees are not uncommon, with other investors also facing challenges in court regarding their brokerage fees [4][6].