（四）其他煽动性话术。如宣称"股市下跌投顾骗钱"，此类短视频、直播通过"血本无归""A股股灾"等唱空股市的话术 以及投资者亏损的案例进行诱导营销宣传，通过煽动性文案吸引投资者主动联系"代理维权"机构。 二、风险提示 （一）勿听信谣言。"全额退保""贷款/信用卡不用还""债务协商""债务置换""征信洗白""投顾费用全退"等均属不实信 息，与《保险法》《商业银行法》《证券法》《征信业管理条例》等金融法律法规不符，金融消费者、投资者应通过 政策出台部门官方网站、金融机构全国统一客服热线等正规渠道获取信息，通过正规金融机构、正规渠道获取金融服 务，勿轻信非官方渠道信息，警惕诱导性营销说辞，避免上当受骗。 2月6日，金融监管总局、中央网信办、公安部、中国人民银行、中国证监会联合发布关于警惕不法"代理维权"短视频 及直播陷阱的风险提示。 提示内容显示，近期，社会上一些组织和个人通过短视频及直播等自媒体平台违规制作、散布涉及"全额退保""债务清 零""债务优化""债务协商""债务置换""征信洗白""投顾退费"等不实短视频，甚至以直播形式传授"技巧"，诱导金融消 费者、投资者委托其"代理维权"，从而收取高额咨询费、服务费，以 ...

金融监管总局、中央网信办、公安部、中国人民银行、中国证监会关于警惕不法"代理维权"短视频及直 播陷阱的风险提示 近期，社会上一些组织和个人通过短视频及直播等自媒体平台违规制作、散布涉及"全额退保""债务清 零""债务优化""债务协商""债务置换""征信洗白""投顾退费"等不实短视频，甚至以直播形式传授"技 巧"，诱导金融消费者、投资者委托其"代理维权"，从而收取高额咨询费、服务费，以"依法维权"之名 行"非法牟利"之实。此类不法"代理维权"短视频、直播传播不实信息，扰乱金融市场秩序，侵害金融消 费者、投资者合法权益。为此，金融监管总局、中央网信办、公安部、中国人民银行、中国证监会发布 风险提示，提醒广大群众警惕不法"代理维权"侵害，依法理性维权。 一、不法"代理维权"短视频、直播乱象主要特征 (一)谎称"监管部门出新政"。此类短视频、直播以监管部门强化监管、出台监管新规为名，以"全额退 保""债务回收清零""债务置换""免费代看征信"等为噱头，散布"退保新政""债务回收试点政策""全民清 债清查五年规划""洗白大额逾期""证监会新政，X月退费通道开通"等不实信息混淆视听。部分短视频、 直播错误引用甚至有意曲解 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case involving Bai Junqiang, former deputy secretary and general manager of Shijiazhuang Urban Investment Group, highlights significant corruption within the financial sector, particularly the collusion between insurance company employees and banks in deposit solicitation activities [2][5][8]. Group 1: Case Details - Bai Junqiang utilized his position to facilitate deposit solicitation for three banks, receiving nearly 10 million RMB in kickbacks [2][5]. - The criminal judgment revealed that Bai received a total of 9.9764 million RMB from Gong Mugang, a client manager from an insurance company, for helping him secure large deposits in banks [5][6]. - The Shijiazhuang Urban Investment Group, a state-owned enterprise, has total assets of 69.037 billion RMB and reported an operating income of 175 million RMB in 2024 [5]. Group 2: Financial Sector Implications - The case illustrates a broader trend where insurance company employees assist banks in meeting deposit targets, often in exchange for personal benefits such as commissions or promotions [4][9]. - Gong Mugang received a total of 16.375 million RMB in kickbacks, with a significant portion retained by himself, indicating a lucrative but unethical practice within the industry [8]. - The collaboration between insurance companies and banks raises concerns about market integrity and the potential for legal repercussions, as such practices may violate various financial regulations [10].