专题：2025金融教育宣传周：保障金融权益 助力美好生活 基金行业在行动 冒充正规机构实施诈骗犯罪活动 近期，有不法分子冒充正规的证券公司、私募基金管理公司等，诱导投资者下载虚假平台，并转账至指定的个人或第三方账户，后期平台无法登录，资金 无法退出。 【案例】不法分子冒充证券公司、私募基金管理公司工作人员，利用假冒的证券公司、私募基金管理公司APP和交易软件，诱导投资者加入聊天群、荐股 群等方式，对投资者实施诈骗。首先，不法分子冒充合法证券公司、私募基金管理公司工作人员通过微信等多种渠道主动联系投资者，在骗取其信任后引 诱投资者加入"投资"群聊，接受"投资专家"荐股。随后，不法分子"指导"投资者下载假冒的证券公司、私募基金管理公司App、交易软件，转入资金进行 投资。前期小额投资试水可获得返利，一旦投资者加大资金投入后，就会发现无法提现，并被不法分子拉黑，且假冒App、交易软件无法登录。有的不法 分子还以"公司制度规定""审核失败""服务暂停""未完成任务"等作为无法提现的理由，要求投资者再次充钱，继续实施诈骗。不法分子通过互联网实施诈 骗，流窜作案甚至藏身境外，当投资者被骗后，很难找到诈骗人员，难以追回被骗 ...

Group 1 - In July, the number of newly registered private equity funds reached 1,689, with a total scale of 107.43 billion yuan, representing a 114.6% increase compared to June's 50.06 billion yuan [1] - Among the new registrations, private securities investment funds accounted for 1,313, with a scale of 79.28 billion yuan, showing a significant growth of 163.8% from June [1] - The new registration scale for private equity investment funds and venture capital funds was 11.36 billion yuan and 16.79 billion yuan, respectively [1] Group 2 - By the end of July, there were 22 institutions that processed through the AMBERS system, including 6 private securities fund managers and 16 private equity and venture capital fund managers [1] - In July, 78 private fund managers were deregistered, leaving a total of 19,700 active private fund managers managing 139,430 funds with a total scale of 20.68 trillion yuan [1] Group 3 - The distribution of registered private fund managers is concentrated in Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Zhejiang (excluding Ningbo), Guangdong (excluding Shenzhen), and Jiangsu, accounting for 72.20% of the total, slightly up from 72.19% in June [3] - The number of private fund managers in Shanghai is 3,695, in Beijing is 3,234, in Shenzhen is 2,961, in Zhejiang (excluding Ningbo) is 1,569, in Guangdong (excluding Shenzhen) is 1,561, and in Jiangsu is 1,203 [3]

Core Viewpoint - The Shenzhen Securities Regulatory Bureau has reported on the regulatory situation of private equity funds in the region, highlighting issues of non-compliance with laws and regulations by some fund managers, which have harmed investor rights [1] Group 1: Regulatory Findings - The Shenzhen Securities Regulatory Bureau has identified violations by certain private equity fund managers, including breaches of legal regulations and fund contract agreements during investment operations [1] - Notable issues include improper product valuation, subscription and redemption practices, and related party transactions that have significantly harmed investor interests [1] - Some institutions have crossed the line by misappropriating fund assets, indicating a serious lack of diligence in fulfilling investment management obligations [1] Group 2: Regulatory Requirements - The Shenzhen Securities Regulatory Bureau has mandated that all private equity fund managers in the region must exercise due diligence and prudence in their investment management duties [1] - Fund managers are required to ensure that their investment operations comply with regulatory rules and fund contract stipulations, and must not harm the legitimate rights and interests of investors [1]

Core Viewpoint - Private equity funds are favored by investors for their high return potential, but the associated risks are often overlooked, highlighted by recent payment crises due to regulatory violations by several private equity firms [1] Group 1: Risk Rating of Private Equity Funds - The risk rating of private equity funds is classified into five levels (R1-R5) based on both quantitative and qualitative analyses, as per the "Guidelines for the Management of Investor Suitability in Fund Raising Institutions (Trial)" [3] - Quantitative indicators include beta coefficient, standard deviation, and Value at Risk (VaR), which measure volatility and liquidity risks [3] - Qualitative factors involve the concentration of investment targets, complexity of product structure, and special risks from related transactions, emphasizing the importance of compliance in risk rating [3] Group 2: Responding to Mismatched Risk Ratings - Investors must ensure their risk tolerance aligns with the fund's risk rating through a questionnaire that assesses their risk preference (C1-C5 levels) [6] - If the fund manager fails to conduct a substantive assessment, investors can claim a breach of suitability obligations and seek compensation [7] - Strategies for addressing mismatched products include exercising the "cooling-off period" to withdraw investments within 24 hours, negotiating adjustments to investment plans, and timely exit if there are violations such as fund misappropriation [7][8] Group 3: Legal Recourse and Investor Rights - Investors can file administrative complaints with the CSRC or the Asset Management Association of China to trigger regulatory investigations [8] - Civil lawsuits can be pursued against fund managers for breaching fiduciary duties, requiring proof of direct causation between disclosure violations and losses [8] - Effective legal actions include seeking civil compensation for breaches of suitability obligations or disclosure violations, and reporting to law enforcement for illegal fundraising or fraud [12] Group 4: Best Practices for Investors - Investors should ensure that contracts clearly stipulate disclosure obligations regarding underlying assets to avoid information blind spots [9] - Contracts should include detailed risk disclosure clauses to highlight special risks such as related transactions and reliance on single targets [9] - Maintaining a comprehensive evidence chain, including risk assessment questionnaires and recorded communications, is crucial for future legal claims [9]