Core Viewpoint - Investment-linked insurance and variable annuities combine insurance protection with investment functions, featuring a separate account that reflects investment performance, thus mitigating inflation impacts [2][4]. Group 1: Legal Interpretation of Investment-linked Insurance - Investment-linked insurance possesses both traditional insurance attributes and innovative design, with variable payouts based on investment performance rather than fixed amounts [4]. - The independent account in investment-linked insurance resembles a contractual securities investment fund, sharing characteristics such as pooled funds for investment purposes and risk-sharing among investors [5][6]. - The independent account's structure allows for asset segregation, ensuring that funds are not mixed with other insurance products, thus providing legal protection for policyholders in case of insurer bankruptcy [7]. Group 2: Institutional Arrangements for Investment-linked Insurance - The relationship between the insurance component and the independent account should be understood as a contractual linkage, allowing for the application of different legal rules to each component [9]. - Comparative legal frameworks, such as those in the U.S. and Japan, recognize the dual nature of investment-linked insurance, suggesting that it should be regulated under securities law to protect investor rights [10][11]. - The legal classification of investment-linked insurance should avoid rigid categorization as either insurance or securities, as this could lead to regulatory gaps and misapplication of laws [12]. Group 3: Legislative Improvements for Independent Accounts - Legislative improvements should include provisions in the Insurance Law to address the unique characteristics of investment-linked insurance and its independent accounts, reflecting the regulatory experience accumulated over the years [13]. - Expanding the definition of "asset management products" in the Securities Law is necessary to encompass investment-linked insurance, ensuring that it aligns with current market practices [14]. - Regulatory focus should address specific risks associated with independent accounts, including sales fraud, information asymmetry, and fiduciary duties of insurers [15]. Group 4: Risk Management and Regulatory Obligations - Financial institutions should adhere to suitability obligations to prevent mismatches between product risks and customer capabilities, thereby reducing sales fraud risks [16]. - Information disclosure obligations must be strengthened to ensure transparency in investment-linked insurance products, drawing from securities governance rules [18]. - Insurers, as fiduciaries, must fulfill their duties diligently, managing independent account assets in the best interest of policyholders, with legal consequences for breaches of trust [19].

一则关于爱马仕第五代继承人尼古拉·皮埃什的消息震惊了全球财经与时尚圈，他高达150亿美元的爱马仕股份已"蒸发"殆尽，甚至沦落到出行乘坐廉价航空 中间座位的地步。而这一切，都指向他信任多年的财富管理人埃里克·弗雷蒙德。随着弗雷蒙德今夏在瑞士阿尔卑斯山区离奇卧轨身亡，这场交织着巨额财 富、亲密背叛与死亡阴影的谜案，被外界称为"本世纪最史诗般的金融传奇之一"。 从此，皮埃什活在弗雷蒙德精心编织的谎言中。这位财富管理人始终声称资产"稳定增值"，甚至制作虚假报表令其安心。而真相是，弗雷蒙德早已将大部分 爱马仕股份私下出售给竞争对手路威酩轩（LVMH）集团，并通过虚假投资与艺术品交易，将巨额资金转移至自己及亲信名下。 这场持续二十多年的骗局，其败露过程颇具戏剧性。2022年，皮埃什询问一笔给园丁的100万瑞士法郎转账情况时，被园丁妻子意外戳破了弗雷蒙德的谎 言。随后启动的审计才揭开百亿资产"蒸发"的真相，皮埃什名下的爱马仕股份早已被清空，银行账户也遭冻结。 更讽刺的是，弗雷蒙德早有违规前科，曾因内幕交易被罚，却仍能凭借复杂人脉长期操控这场豪门骗局。2024年，皮埃什提起诉讼后，今年夏天，弗雷蒙德 在法国司法部门的问询后， ...