招商证券武汉分支机构交易佣金纠纷案胜诉

财中社2025-07-18

近日，武汉金融审判领域曝出证券交易佣金纠纷案终审结果，投资者程某诉招商证券武汉青年路营业部佣金收取违规一案，经两级法院审理均以败诉告终。这起佣金争议案件，将证券行业存量客户佣金差异化定价问题推向公众视野。据法院审理查明，本案为证券交易合同纠纷，上诉人程某因不服招商证券武汉青年路营业部收取高额佣金提起诉讼。程某自2007年开户以来，佣金费率长期维持在2.5‰，而该营业部自2016年起对新客户执行...

网页链接

免责声明：本文观点仅代表作者个人观点，不构成本平台的投资建议，本平台不对文章信息准确性、完整性和及时性做出任何保证，亦不对因使用或信赖文章信息引发的任何损失承担责任。

精彩评论

我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白

发表看法

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"isChannel":false,"data":{"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2552146635?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","thumbnail":"","is_english":false,"pubTime":"2025-07-18 15:50","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/b0d1b7e8843deea78cc308b15114de44","id":"2552146635","market":"sh","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"招商证券武汉分支机构交易佣金纠纷案胜诉","media":"财中社","content":"<div>\n<p>近日，武汉金融审判领域曝出证券交易佣金纠纷案终审结果，投资者程某诉招商证券武汉青年路营业部佣金收取违规一案，经两级法院审理均以败诉告终。这起佣金争议案件，将证券行业存量客户佣金差异化定价问题推向公众视野。据法院审理查明，本案为证券交易合同纠纷，上诉人程某因不服招商证券武汉青年路营业部收取高额佣金提起诉讼。程某自2007年开户以来，佣金费率长期维持在2.5‰，而该营业部自2016年起对新客户执行...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/zqgd/2025-07-18/doc-inffwpwp9224734.shtml\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"sina","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>招商证券武汉分支机构交易佣金纠纷案胜诉</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n招商证券武汉分支机构交易佣金纠纷案胜诉\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2025-07-18 15:50 北京时间&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/zqgd/2025-07-18/doc-inffwpwp9224734.shtml><strong>财中社</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>近日，武汉金融审判领域曝出证券交易佣金纠纷案终审结果，投资者程某诉招商证券武汉青年路营业部佣金收取违规一案，经两级法院审理均以败诉告终。这起佣金争议案件，将证券行业存量客户佣金差异化定价问题推向公众视野。据法院审理查明，本案为证券交易合同纠纷，上诉人程某因不服招商证券武汉青年路营业部收取高额佣金提起诉讼。程某自2007年开户以来，佣金费率长期维持在2.5‰，而该营业部自2016年起对新客户执行...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/zqgd/2025-07-18/doc-inffwpwp9224734.shtml\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":"BK0028","symbol_name":"国家队","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/zqgd/2025-07-18/doc-inffwpwp9224734.shtml","article_id":"2552146635","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2552146635","pubTimestamp":1752825000,"columns":[],"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"sina","name":"sina"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"近日，武汉金融审判领域曝出证券交易佣金纠纷案终审结果，投资者程某诉招商证券武汉青年路营业部佣金收取违规一案，经两级法院审理均以败诉告终。此外，程某在后续协议中再次确认对历史佣金无异议，法院认定营业部不存在欺诈或违规行为。最终，一审、二审均驳回程某诉求，维持原判。此次武汉青年路营业部佣金纠纷案的终审判决，虽从法律层面明确了合同约定的效力，但也为证券行业敲响了合规警钟。","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"sina.com.cn","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"zh","relate_stocks":{"600999":"招商证券","BK0028":"国家队","06099":"招商证券","BK0276":"资本市场","BK0010":"央企","BK0183":"MSCI概念","BK0188":"融资融券","BK0012":"证金概念","BK1147":"投资银行业与经纪业","BK1564":"中资券商股"},"translate_title":"China Merchants Securities Wuhan Branch won the transaction commission dispute case","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{"600999":1,"06099":1},"content_text":"近日，武汉金融审判领域曝出证券交易佣金纠纷案终审结果，投资者程某诉招商证券武汉青年路营业部佣金收取违规一案，经两级法院审理均以败诉告终。这起佣金争议案件，将证券行业存量客户佣金差异化定价问题推向公众视野。据法院审理查明，本案为证券交易合同纠纷，上诉人程某因不服招商证券武汉青年路营业部收取高额佣金提起诉讼。程某自2007年开户以来，佣金费率长期维持在2.5‰，而该营业部自2016年起对新客户执行0.6‰的佣金标准。程某主张营业部存在价格歧视、未依法公示佣金调整及隐瞒监管费退还等问题，要求退还多收佣金并三倍赔偿共计39492元。法院审理认为，双方签订的《证券交易委托代理协议书》明确约定佣金按公示标准收取且程某签署协议时确认无异议，营业部收取的2.5‰佣金未超过监管上限3‰。根据行业惯例，存量客户佣金调整需主动申请或监管指导，程某直至2024年才申请调整，营业部已依规处理。此外，程某在后续协议中再次确认对历史佣金无异议，法院认定营业部不存在欺诈或违规行为。最终，一审、二审均驳回程某诉求，维持原判。该案判决结果公布后引发市场广泛讨论。多位业内人士指出，证券行业长期存在 \"新老客户佣金双轨制\" 现象，新客户享受优惠费率而存量客户维持高位费率的情况并非个例，但此案暴露出的信息不对称问题值得警惕。有投资者权益保护机构表示，尽管法院基于合同约定作出裁判，但券商在佣金定价透明度和客户告知义务履行方面仍有改进空间。市场争议焦点集中在券商是否充分履行佣金调整告知义务，以及 \"不申请不调整\" 的行业惯例是否损害投资者知情权。此次武汉青年路营业部佣金纠纷案的终审判决，虽从法律层面明确了合同约定的效力，但也为证券行业敲响了合规警钟。在金融消费者权益保护日益强化的监管环境下，券商如何平衡经营效益与合规责任，建立更加透明、公平的佣金定价机制，成为亟待解决的行业课题。\n\n\n海量资讯、精准解读，尽在新浪财经APP","kind":"news","is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":false,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":false,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"1","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"isVideo":false,"video":null,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":0,"need_auth":false,"need_login_tip":false,"code":"91000000","status":"200"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false},"APP":{"userAgent":"Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)","isDev":false,"isTTM":false,"isLaohu8Offline":false,"tenantId":"TBCN","deviceId":"web-server-community-laohu8-v3","version":"4.44.1","shortVersion":"4.44.1","platform":"web","vendor":"web","appName":"laohu8","isIOS":false,"isAndroid":false,"isTiger":false,"isTHS":false,"isWeiXin":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"isWeiBo":false,"isQQ":false,"isBaiduSwan":false,"isBaiduBox":false,"isDingTalk":false,"isToutiao":false,"isOnePlus":false,"isHuaWei":false,"isXiaomi":false,"isXiaomiWebView":false,"isOppo":false,"isVivo":false,"isSamsung":false,"isMobile":false},"href":"/m/news/2552146635","isCrawlerRequest":true}