【案情回顾】 季先生与许女士夫妇二人均是一家保险公司的老客户。该公司业务员兰某获取二人保单信息后主动上 门，"游说"二人称已投保的产品利息很少，新的产品会计收复利、收益更有优势，可将原先购买的10份 保险合同退掉，投保两份新的保险。兰某同时承诺，因退保产生的损失会补偿给二人。 在兰某的极力推荐下，季先生与许女士夫妇退掉了先前购买的10份保险合同，并投保了兰某推荐的两份 新产品。然而，退保后，兰某却并未按约定兑现补偿损失的承诺。二人还发现，兰某在推销新产品的过 程中，有意回避了对他们不利的条款，存在误导行为，比如把分红说成是复利、宣称"仅交一年保费不 会产生损失"等。 季先生与许女士认为，兰某虚假宣传、违规承诺、误导销售等行为应属职务行为，由此产生的后果应由 该保险公司承担。于是他们诉至法院，要求该保险公司赔偿二人退保产生的损失，并退还新签订的保险 合同的保险费。 【庭审过程】 庭审中，被告保险公司不同意退还保险费，并称二原告是自愿提出退保申请，应当自行承担解除保险合 同产生的损失。二原告与保险公司后签订的两份保险合同，均是二原告基于自身保险需求并了解保险产 品的基础上作出的投保决定，保险公司尽到了提示说明义务 ...

| 序 | 当事人名称 | 行政处罚决定 | 主要违法违规行为 | 行政处罚 | 作出决 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 름 | | 书文号 | 与未取得兼业资格 | 内容 | 定机关 | | 1 | 华保鑫诺保险 | 廊金罚决字 〔2025〕 24 | 的机构发生业务往 | 警告并罚 | | | | 销售有限公司 | | 来、部分费用列支 | 款13万元 | 廊坊金 | | | | | 与实际不符 | | 融监管 | | 2 | 苑法新 (时任 | 를 | | | 分局 | | | 华保鑫诺保险 | | 对上述行为负有责 | 警告并罚 | | | | 销售有限公司 | | 任 | 款2万元 | | | | 总经理) | | | | | 1月20日，廊坊金融监管分局发布的行政处罚信息公开表显示，华保鑫诺保险销售有限公司（以下简称"华保鑫诺保险销售"）因与未取得兼业资格的机构发 生业务往来、部分费用列支与实际不符，被警告并被罚款13万元。时任公司总经理苑法新因对上述行为负有责任，被警告并被罚款2万元。 有分析人士指出，保险销售公司通过无资质机构开展的业务，其保 ...

Core Viewpoint - The rise of "professional agents for policy cancellation" in the insurance sector is becoming increasingly concerning, with reports of fraudulent activities and significant financial losses for insurance companies [2][4][14]. Group 1: Fraudulent Activities - A recent case highlighted by the financial regulatory authorities involved individuals using "agent for policy cancellation" as a guise for extortion, resulting in a loss of 2.1762 million yuan for insurance companies and illegal profits of 489,600 yuan for the perpetrators [2][3]. - The phenomenon of "agent for policy cancellation" is prevalent on social media, with many posts claiming high success rates for policy cancellations, attracting numerous comments and interactions from users [4][9]. Group 2: Victim Experiences - Some policyholders reported success rates of 70% to 95% in obtaining refunds through intermediaries, while others faced scams, losing deposits in the process [5][10]. - A case study revealed a policyholder who received 18,000 yuan in refunds after paying a service fee of 1,900 yuan (approximately 10.6%) to the intermediary, despite lacking evidence of wrongdoing by the insurance agent [10][12]. Group 3: Legal Implications - Legal experts indicate that if intermediaries incite policyholders to fabricate or exaggerate claims against insurance companies, it constitutes a clear violation of the law [6][14]. - The insurance sales process is governed by strict regulations, and violations can lead to penalties, including fines ranging from 20,000 to 100,000 yuan for individuals and up to 300,000 yuan for agencies [15][16].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights a concerning practice at airports where individuals, posing as staff, sell insurance under misleading pretenses, often without proper authorization or transparency [1][5][12]. Group 1: Incident Description - A passenger, Xi Jie, was approached by uniformed individuals at an airport who offered to help her with her ticket and subsequently sold her an accidental insurance policy without her consent, with the premium going to a company named Jiangxi United Online Technology [1][4]. - The sales process involved the staff claiming to check for unnecessary charges on her ticket, leading to a quick and pressured sale of the insurance policy, which was framed as a necessary step to cancel unwanted services [3][10]. Group 2: Company Background - Jiangxi United Online Technology's credentials are questionable, as there is no record of the company having the necessary insurance sales qualifications, and it has been removed from the list of authorized insurance agents [5][14]. - The airport confirmed that the individuals selling insurance were from an outsourced company, but there was no verification of their legitimacy or qualifications [5][12]. Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Concerns - Legal experts indicate that the actions of Jiangxi United Online Technology could be classified as illegal operations due to the lack of insurance sales qualifications, which poses risks to consumers [6][14]. - The article emphasizes that if the company lacks proper authorization, it could lead to significant legal repercussions for both the company and the airport for allowing such practices [6][14]. Group 4: Consumer Experience and Reactions - Many consumers have reported similar experiences of being misled into purchasing insurance at airports, often under the guise of assistance from staff [11][12]. - The article notes that the sales tactics employed create a false sense of urgency and trust, leading passengers to make hasty decisions without fully understanding the terms of the insurance [9][10].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights a concerning practice at airports where individuals posing as staff sell insurance products under misleading circumstances, raising questions about the legitimacy of their operations and the potential risks to consumers [1][4][10]. Group 1: Incident Description - A passenger, identified as Xi Jie, experienced a deceptive insurance sales tactic at an airport where she was persuaded to purchase an aviation accident insurance policy without her consent, with the premium going to a company named Jiangxi United Online Technology [1][3]. - The sales process involved staff checking her ticket app and claiming she had unnecessary services, leading her to believe she needed to purchase insurance to resolve the issue [2][9]. - The insurance was sold under the guise of helping her cancel unwanted services, but it was later revealed to be a tactic to push the insurance product [5][9]. Group 2: Company Legitimacy - Investigations revealed that Jiangxi United Online Technology lacks any verifiable insurance sales qualifications, raising concerns about its operations and the legality of its sales practices [4][5]. - The airport confirmed that the sales personnel were from an outsourced company, but there was no evidence of the company having the necessary insurance intermediary licenses [5][11]. - Legal experts indicated that the lack of qualifications could lead to significant risks for consumers, including the potential invalidation of insurance policies due to improper underwriting [5][12]. Group 3: Regulatory Concerns - The article discusses the regulatory framework surrounding insurance sales, emphasizing that sales personnel must disclose their identity and provide clear information about the insurance products being sold [6][12]. - There are strict requirements for insurance sales processes, including the necessity of providing a customer information document and ensuring that premiums are paid directly to the insurance company [7][12]. - The article suggests that the airport's management may be failing in its duty to oversee the activities of outsourced personnel, allowing misleading practices to occur [11][12]. Group 4: Consumer Reactions - Many consumers have reported similar experiences of being misled into purchasing insurance at airports, indicating a broader issue within the industry [10][11]. - Social media complaints reveal a pattern of deceptive practices where passengers are approached by individuals in uniforms who misrepresent their roles and the nature of the services offered [10][11]. - The article concludes that there is a pressing need for better regulation and oversight of insurance sales practices at airports to protect consumers from such deceptive tactics [12][13].