Category: Money tips Release Date: 2007-06-29
A case arising from litigation
In April 2000, Lee Zhang, the name to his mother opened a securities account and capital account and start trading. In July 2004, Lee died due to accident, in which the account to leave a lot of stock and cash assets. Subsequently, the mother, wife of Wang, Zhang and Lee on the accounts of the stock ownership attribution court, after final court of second instance ruling, found that Lee and his wife Zhang legal relationship between the investment by the name, Lee couples litigation account the actual owners of property rights. Wang, who is now the Court's judgments related to the securities firm sought to exercise those powers and functions of its stock ownership, which includes change your password, free trade, the rights to withdraw funds. In this regard, the securities companies require their handling of estates notarized or completely processed after the inheritance shall be to assist with the dispute, the two sides disagree, the dispute was thus deployed.
Mr. Wang believes that the exercise of stock rights and withdrawal of funds such as those of their shares were entitled to their rights, inheritance involved in the division of property belonging to another legal relationship, about this point, the Court has also clearly related to judgments. Securities companies should not be involved in estate division of the property subject to refuse such claims, with her mother's legacy of division between the Department of its internal matter, securities companies should not be indefinitely deprived of their legitimate transactions and access to the property and other related rights, or shares Change the risk of the securities company.
Securities believes that the litigation of property despite a court decision the Department of jointly owned property, but because of the death of a party, a total of the relationship will be terminated, the relationship between the original total will be converted into heritage inheritance, joint property ownership is uncertain, a party must possession, distribution, disposition, management of the property, must obtain the consent of the other heirs, or the complete solution to the inheritance disputes, and securities companies before I apply, because the parties are not intra-long transfer delays or effect of lazy, summary or intentionally caused by the exercise of stock Change the risk has nothing to do with the securities companies, not by the securities companies. In the corresponding legal procedures are not prepared, inheritance disputes have not been completely resolved, securities firms act as custodians of the role of passive but also to effectively protect the interests of their clients, but also the securities company's internal control, risk prevention needs.
What is a reasonable solution to the
In fact, the co-owner and the heir to dispose of a total of relief goods are not contradictory. A total of the right is a property right, property is completely the same with the absolute right of property, rights and control over to the world of empowerment is both an expression for the total of the right to directly control a total of the rights in and enjoy the benefits of a total of the right to object, but also expressed as a total of the right to exclude others from interfering in people's rights. In a total of the division of property, should allow the co-owner the exclusive right to complete, should fully respect the co-owner the right to dispose of a total of objects, a total of person to dispose of a total of things must take into account the interests of the common property of maximizing the effect of lazy heirs, and not interfere with the exercise of the right of succession A total of empowerment and stop play, to maintain the security of transactions, lock-risk point of view, the property buying and selling stocks accordingly should be said that both the need to safeguard individual rights, but also safeguarding the interests of the other heirs in law should be supported, shall be presumed their good will. This presumption is not to the actual meaning of heir to prevail, but in most people in this case the meaning will be made subject, of course, a presumption would be in its own meaning. Even if there were malicious, unauthorized disposition, heirs can not be requested to the court finds that the act void, and can only ask the owner should get a share of the compensation. In fact, where there is co-owner against the interests of heirs, successors be able to get judicial relief.
Of course, the total of the exercise of the right as far as possible balance between the interests of heirs, which is mainly reflected in co-ownership, should actively cooperate with the successor division of property requirements. If there were a total of in the exercise of the right to remain an appropriate share of the foot is the greatest safeguard the interests of the heirs. Of course, the review of whether to stay the full share, this is not a securities company obligations, and certainly not a legal requirement for mandatory securities companies.
At present, securities companies, including banks with regard to inheritance in the approach to heritage generally require notarized heirs, and the notary heir not only to prove identity, and even ask other people to give up the succession was to be handled. From a risk control perspective, this approach Objectively speaking, for ensuring the safety of customers, reduce the risk of financial institutions is good, but legally speaking, there is no legal basis to require legalization, ask other people to give up is a serious violation of citizen's property rights. Such pairs of insurance practice, actually increases the cost of the customer, to reduce the risk of securities firms and no significant benefit.
In this case, Mr. Wang and her mother how the split between the estate, and with the stock ownership of customers and securities firms completely different from the legal relationship between the securities company undertakes no obligation to their clients had no right to a reasonable segmentation heritage, so its not should be based on succession disputes that may arise to counter the exercise of client ownership, securities companies simply examine whether the customers in line with the Securities and Exchange rules, rather than its powers can be extended to other legal relationship to another, not to mention, two levels of courts in adjudicating disputes in the stock the process, have been limited to the actual ownership of those who did not exercise the relevant rights, the final verdict only on the descriptions of the non-proprietary to the lost Zhang who made a formal informed Zhang that the right of inheritance according to law, but the inheritance belongs to another legal relationship with the exercise of stock ownership without direct contact. From the perspective of succession, inheritance is an overall concept that if Zhang's own physical possession of the property more than its deserved share of the estate, then the stock of the right outer part of the property covered by the concept of heritage is no longer, if really heritage exists, Zhang through numerous judgments, the law can be clearly presumed to be knowingly, because the effect of lazy to exercise their right of inheritance related to their legal risk should have its own, securities companies in the legal sense have no responsibility whatsoever.
Disputes in relation to the stock, the securities companies as long as the customer in accordance with law to confirm the ownership of shares in respect of stock in time for the customer handle matters relating to, or else the stock Change who will bear the risks of abnormal? In fact even if the succession disputes do occur, will also be directly responsible for the actual disposal of the stock-owner, that is, with Zhang because there is no stock in the account title, of course, she can not be directly triggered the securities litigation law firm , so they were entitled to exercise the rights so that does not need to bear the legal risk.
Securities companies have a moral responsibility to the maximum, but also explicitly informed ownership of a total of just who should be based on "Inheritance" 24th of "the heritage of people there that should be kept heritage, no person shall embezzle, or scramble," the provision requires commitment to the custody of the obligation to do good, thus the legal consequences arising from disposal of property, those who bear full responsibility; on the other heirs, as long as the securities companies to ensure that the legal presumption of co-owner can be a total of knowing that other people will exercise their rights, but its not expressly objected within thirty days, can be deemed to have agreed. In this way also can effectively intervene to prevent securities companies indefinitely to other unnecessary legal relationship to go. (CITIC Securities Ren-Jie Chen Jin-pass)
