When it comes to territorial jurisdiction, the more controversial story. In 1995 the Chengdu forum summary ", considering the futures disputes tend to be more complex, to facilitate court, states:" (futures disputes) generally by the defendant where or futures exchanges, brokerage firms and receive a business license of the futures brokerage company branch structures are located to the intermediate people's Court of jurisdiction. " But this provision soon because there is a disconnect with the market, leading to various contradictions.
Futures disputes in our country, the vast majority of customers to Broker's Firm trading disputes, in general, of course, is registered in the jurisdiction of the Broker's Firm. But a lot of the futures brokerage company to expand the business, to set up in different places, a large number of "business department especially in exchange to (I owned more than a dozen exchange), it is", "representative office", "the office" and other institutions, due to the spirit of the information, passenger source is much, to facilitate transactions, many branch size even beyond the company became the Department of the company's business center. October 27, 1995, the China Securities Regulatory Commission and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce jointly issued a document "on the audit of the futures brokerage company set up futures business department notice, ready to regulate the number of futures company's branch management, futures business permit and business license issued reunification, but due to various reasons, this document has not continued the implementation of shelving in the past five years, until December 21, 1999, the China Securities Regulatory Commission was re issued" on the futures brokerage business department approval notice ", until the first futures business department of the company to receive the futures the business license for a license for trade and Industry after 2000 is already a matter. Therefore, a basic fact is that the "Chengdu forum summary" in the provisions of the "business license of the futures Broker's Firm branches" in about five years time does not exist.
During this period, if a customer decides to participate in futures trading by Beijing, by a friend, he came to a Futures Company in Hainan, Beijing business department to open an account, signed a contract and pay a deposit of $100 thousand. Shortly after the occurrence of Futures Dispute, no consultation, decided to sue. When he to the Beijing Intermediate People's court pleadings, the defendant raises objection to jurisdiction, that due to the sales department did not receive a business license, according to the Chengdu forum will summary "provisions on jurisdiction over cases involving futures disputes, the futures disputes shall be borne by the defendant resides the Haikou City Intermediate People's court of jurisdiction, Beijing City Intermediate People's court to review that objection is justified, and ruled that transferred to the intermediate people's Court of Haikou City. Poor customer, the people of Beijing, the lawsuit has to go to Hainan to go to the remotest corners of the globe. As the standard of 100 thousand yuan, down to a lawsuit, Hainan spends on the reimbursement, but also to not tell a?.
Of course, and not all of this kind of case is the ending, the specific cases have specific circumstances, some courts that in accordance with the contract principle, local court may have jurisdiction over, some courts that should to whether there have been transactions actually according to judge the performance of the contract. But differences between the provisions and the reality indeed to the parties to the litigation and court brings some problems, as the market management gradually standardized, the problem becomes a small episode in the development of the market.
Another was a jurisdiction problem is the protagonist of the exchange. After mid 1990s, several exchanges have seen big market, there have been issued Interim Measures, exchange protocol liquidation event. This will inevitably hurt some short delivery customers, has initiated the lawsuit. At that time, Southern China Futures Exchange issued a temporary measure had caused a number of lawsuits nationwide. Customer dissatisfaction is mainly aimed at the exchange issued the interim measures, but which customers are reluctant to choose to sue the Guangzhou court exchange. So they made legitimate and advantageous to their choice, prosecuted, brokerage firms, the exchange shall be listed as the third party, happens brokerage behavior where the court is legally under the jurisdiction of the this case. So the following scene, real defendant -- a exchange in South China to respectively to Beijing, Dalian, Shenyang, Changchun, Zhengzhou and other courts deal with different customers because of the same reason to initiate litigation, more interesting is that the court decision, the results are not the same, the exchange has the winning and losing. During this period, several exchanges have encountered similar problems, from a legal perspective, no ground for blame, but look at the consequences of the Civil Procedure Law of our country and does not match the spirit of the. Exchange strongly appeal to the opinion also caused the attention of the Supreme Court, in the introduction of the new judicial interpretation of the provisions of the futures company refused on behalf of clients to the claim by the futures exchange, customers can directly sue the futures exchange, futures companies can participate in the proceedings as the third party. " So, such disputes occur in the future, whether the Futures Company on behalf of clients or customers to sue to sue exchange site.
The above story is "the struggle", the facts speak, according to some "home court"; but the parties are too important, at the "Wu grab" to get. In 1997, of a futures company in Changchun will own the Zhengzhou Commodity Exchange seats contracting leased to a local company use, signed the contract after charged rent (of course, it is a kind of illegal conduct), a year later, the dispute between the two sides. Changchun Futures Company sued in Changchun local company in Zhengzhou City Intermediate People's court, of course not, then put forward the objection to jurisdiction to Changchun City Intermediate People's court. But the opposition is Changchun court of second instance continuous rejected, on the grounds that: under the jurisdiction of the Chengdu forum will summary "provisions" (futures disputes) generally by the defendant where or futures exchanges, brokerage firms and receive business license of the futures brokerage company where the branch is located intermediate people's court jurisdiction. Therefore, this case can be the plaintiff (futures brokerage company) is located in Changchun City Intermediate Court. At first glance, the reason to reject the clever use of the "Chengdu forum summary" provisions, but a little wonder, you will see that, this is a pure concept of substitution (will be contracted to steal the disputes of Futures Dispute), it is hard to imagine that the court of second instance will not understand this simple truth. This example shows the "brutal battle for home court". In the newly promulgated regulations on Several Issues concerning the trial of cases involving futures disputes will be the original Chengdu forum will summary "formulation directly expressed as" the people's court shall determine of Futures Dispute Case Jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law Article 24, Article 25 and Article 29 of the obviously more scientific, more rigorous and also to plug the loopholes.
Stipulated in Article 25 of the civil procedure law "the parties to the contract can be in a written contract agreement where the defendant, the performance of the contract, the signing of the contract, the people's court where the domicile of the plaintiff, subject matter jurisdiction, but not in violation of this Law on jurisdiction by level and college is under the jurisdiction of the provisions." Along with the futures industry pay more attention on the futures brokerage contract, futures companies more and more active in the contract added to their advantage of jurisdiction clause, the author reminds the futures company, to ensure fair treatment of customers, if you are a business department in Shanghai, in same agreed dispute by Dalian court jurisdiction, some sensitive customers will doubt your lack of sincerity; for customers and contract of the jurisdiction clause is not is not essential equipment, if you think it is unfair to you, at the time of the signing of the contract can require the futures company to modify.
