Listen to Audio of this topic (Cantonese only)
歡迎收聽「長者法網智多聲」。說到2008年金融海嘯，相信很多人也會記得「雷曼兄弟」跟「迷你債券」。這次海嘯令很多投資者蒙受損失，而特區政府也很快地採取更多措施，希望更好保護投資者。這一節我們會跟大家說一說這件事情的來龍去脈。
2008年，雷曼兄弟倒閉，購買了雷曼零售投資產品的投資者，都損失慘重。有投資者投訴，說是銀行或經紀「不當地」向他們銷售「雷曼迷你債券」。他們認為，「迷你債券」這個詞彙有誤導性，因為這些投資產品，其實是「結構性產品」。這些產品實質的機制及性質都很複雜，一般市民，特別是老人家，根本不一定明白是甚麼。
投資者說，銀行職員或經紀推薦投資者購買「迷你債券」時，只是向他們簡單地介紹，說產品「保本」、跟「定期存款相似」、或「低風險投資」，還可以有「可觀的年息」。不過，現實情況是，當雷曼兄弟申請破產保護之後，「迷你債券」大幅貶值，甚至令投資者的本金化為烏有。
另一方面，銀行和經紀就說，他們已經向投資者派發了宣傳單張和說明書，清楚列明這些產品不保本，並且跟雷曼兄弟等公司的信貸掛鈎，亦有清楚披露風險。
結果事件引發一連串的糾紛。香港金融管理局將不當銷售迷你債券個案，轉介給證券及期貨事務監察委員會（即證監會），由證監會進行調查，找到足夠犯錯證據就提出檢控。根據法例，任何人欺詐地、或罔顧實情地，誘使其他人以金錢投資，就是犯法。有些銀行職員就因此被檢控。
不過，就算成功控告銀行職員或金融機構，受害的投資者都不會自動獲得賠償。要追討損失了的金錢，就要另行進行民事訴訟。除了打官司之外，投資者跟銀行或金融機構，也可以透過調解和仲裁，解決糾紛。
而在雷曼迷你債券事件之後，證監會修訂了「證券及期貨事務監察委員會持牌人或註冊人操守準則」，加強保障投資者。修訂包括要求分銷商將客戶分類，如果客戶對衍生工具不太認識，就要更解釋清楚產品可能有甚麼風險，給予客戶適當的意見和警告，並保存與客戶溝通的記錄。另外，分銷商在分銷投資產品之前，要披露是否從產品發行人獲得任何收益，並要向投資者披露所有相關資料。而投資者簽署合約購買投資產品之後，可以在冷靜期內改變主意。
政府不時都有廣告，提醒市民投資要做足功課和評估風險，作為醒目的老友記，在進行任何投資之前，都要考慮清楚呀。這一節就說到這裡，多謝大家收聽。
PrintActions may be taken
Prosecution
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has already referred the “minibonds” mis-selling cases to the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), which is a Hong Kong Government regulatory body that can initiate disciplinary proceedings. The SFC will carry out an investigation and will prosecute the violators if it finds sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.
The penalties available to the SFC include public reprimands, fines and suspension or removal from the list of licensed or registered persons.
Section 107 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance, Chapter 571, sets out the offence to fraudulently or recklessly induce others to invest money. Any person who commits this offence is liable to a fine of $1,000,000 and to imprisonment for 7 years on conviction on indictment; or on summary conviction, to a fine at level 6 and to imprisonment for 6 months.
Recently certain bank officers have been prosecuted under section 107. However, even after successful prosecution of bank officers or financial institutions by the SFC, aggrieved investors are not automatically entitled to compensation for their loss. Additional separate civil proceedings are also needed. That is, the investors must still sue the relevant party (or parties) in Court to recover all or part of their losses.
Both the SFC and HKMA cannot order compensation be paid to the aggrieved investors. This generally requires a court order.
Civil Litigation
Section 108 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance lists out civil liability for inducing others to invest money in certain cases.
An investor could pursue legal action in tort [a wrong that involves a breach of a duty of care owed to someone else] and/or under contract law, as the facts suit. He could sue for damages in tort, or claim for damages for breach of contract and/or could also ask the court to rescind the contract so that he can get back what he paid.
The bank or financial institution would be pursued as the principal of the particular bank officer or broker in question who sold the “minibonds”. It would be difficult to pursue legal action against the issuers since the investor would normally have no direct dealings with them. Moreover, the issuers of the products are most likely companies registered overseas with limited liability and limited financial resources. It would be fruitless to engage in legal action against the issuers directly.
For claims of up to HK$75,000, aggrieved investors have to commence legal proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunal.
For claims over HK$75,000 up to HK$3,000,000, legal action must be commenced in the District Court. Claims above HK$3,000,000 must be presented in the Court of First Instance of the High Court of Hong Kong.
Investors who have difficulty funding their litigation could approach the Legal Aid Department. Their financial position and the merits of their cases would be scrutinized before Legal Aid is granted.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
As an alternative to bringing civil action in Court, the parties could attempt to resolve their disputes through other dispute resolution mechanisms. The most common means are mediation and arbitration.