已实施18年的《信托公司管理办法》修订落地。日前，国家金融监督管理总局发布修订后的《信托公司 管理办法》（下称《办法》），市场密切关注的信托公司业务范围、股东责任、风险处置安排等方面的 监管要求都有新变化。 《办法》是规范信托公司功能定位和经营管理的基础性规章。此番大修后，文件将与资管新规、信托业 务三分类通知等行业新制度更好地衔接。从主要修订内容来看，提高了信托公司注册资本门槛，调整了 业务范围，定调坚持"卖者尽责，买者自负；卖者失责，按责赔偿"，打破刚性兑付；同时，对于信托公 司开展非标业务，也进一步明确了相关要求。 《办法》将自2026年1月1日起施行，不符合规定的存量业务应锁定规模并有序压降。在受访的业内人士 看来，新规在推动行业高质量发展的同时，也为小型信托公司带来一定调整压力，包括资本补充、业务 收缩等。 业务结构大调整，坚持"卖者尽责，买者自负" 原《办法》制定于2007年，至今已实施18年。对于修订背景，金融监管总局有关司局负责人在答记者问 时表示，原《办法》部分条款难以满足信托公司风险防范、转型发展和有效监管的需要，与资管新规、 信托业务三分类通知等近年新出台制度的衔接也有待加强。 上述负责 ...

Core Viewpoint - The implementation of asset management regulations aims to break the implicit guarantee and promote a responsible investment environment, but issues with asset management products can lead to legal disputes regarding investor protection [1][8]. Group 1: Case Overview - A specific case was highlighted by the Beijing Financial Court, where a fund management company failed to conduct adequate due diligence, leading to an inability to repay an investor [1][5]. - The fund product was registered in March 2017, and the investor transferred 1 million yuan to a dedicated account as per the contract [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Findings - The court found that the fund management company only investigated the investment situation and did not verify the performance of cooperation agreements with the investment target and downstream partners, indicating a lack of due diligence [5][7]. - The court ruled that the fund management company was 40% liable for the investor's losses, which included the principal and interest on the funds occupied [7]. Group 3: Due Diligence Standards - The core disputes in asset management-related cases revolve around whether the management fulfilled their fiduciary duties, particularly the due diligence obligation [8][10]. - The Beijing Financial Court established a "six-step review method" to assess whether fund managers have fulfilled their due diligence obligations, providing a reference standard for similar cases [11][15].

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of investor responsibility and the need for financial institutions to ensure proper risk disclosure and management in asset management products, marking a shift towards a "buyer beware, seller be diligent" approach in the investment landscape [11][12][13]. Summary by Sections Case Overview - A Mr. A invested 1 million yuan in an asset management product from B Securities Company, which was later liquidated, resulting in a return of only 650,000 yuan [2][3]. - Mr. A claimed that the sales personnel misled him regarding the product's stop-loss line, prompting him to seek compensation for additional losses of 250,000 yuan [3][4]. Mediation Process and Outcome - The mediator analyzed the case, noting that the product contract clearly stated that the stop-loss line does not guarantee the minimum principal, and multiple documents highlighted the risks involved [7]. - Communication records did not reveal any misleading statements from the sales personnel, leading the mediator to explain the true meaning of the stop-loss line to Mr. A [8]. - Ultimately, Mr. A could not provide evidence of misleading information, and the securities company fulfilled its obligation for investor suitability management, resulting in no agreement reached [8]. Implications and Recommendations - With the implementation of guidelines for asset management, financial institutions can no longer promise capital protection or guaranteed returns, indicating a new phase in the investment market [11]. - Investors are encouraged to enhance their risk recognition abilities and adopt a rational investment mindset, ensuring they thoroughly read contracts and understand product risks before investing [11]. - Securities companies are advised to improve investor suitability management, emphasizing risk disclosure and ensuring that critical information is clearly communicated to investors, especially for high-risk products [12].