Deposit turns into insurance, two elderly people in Henan deposited 100k yuan in the bank, only 70k yuan was withdrawn, China CITIC Bank responds

Ask AI · How bank sales mislead elderly to turn deposits into insurance?

“Originally meant to save money, but ended up as insurance.” Recently, citizen Ms. Guo reported that her parents previously handled a “Retirement Savings” business at CITIC Bank Jiaozuo Branch, depositing 500 yuan monthly, with a total investment of nearly 100k yuan. Only afterward did they realize it was not a deposit, but an insurance product, and canceling the policy would result in a loss of over 30k yuan. Ms. Guo believes her parents were involuntarily persuaded to buy under the misleading and risk-concealing conduct of the staff, and the involved party is suspected of illegal sales.

Deposits turned into insurance, withdrawing 100k yuan would lose over 30k

According to Ms. Guo, her parents started depositing 500 yuan monthly at CITIC Bank Jiaozuo in July 2017 and February 2018 respectively. At that time, bank staff introduced a mandatory savings and supplementary pension product, requiring a monthly deposit of 500 yuan, continuing for 10 years, with a higher interest rate at maturity than regular bank deposits, and also included insurance.

In October 2025, when she accompanied her mother to handle banking business, she discovered that her parents had not purchased a deposit, but an insurance product, with nearly 100k yuan accumulated. After verifying with the bank, it was confirmed that her parents bought an insurance product requiring continuous premium payments for 10 years. This money was not a deposit; withdrawing early would be considered policy surrender, resulting in a loss of over 30k yuan.

Regarding the bank’s claim that “an electronic contract was signed and a paper contract was received afterward,” Ms. Guo explained that her parents did not purchase voluntarily or with genuine intent. The staff described the insurance product as “mandatory savings, supplementary pension,” deliberately confusing savings and insurance concepts, and failed to fulfill the obligation of risk disclosure. She stated that if the staff had honestly explained that it was a high-risk investment-linked insurance requiring 10 consecutive years of payments, her parents would never have bought it. This purchase was due to misleading sales and illegal recommendation by bank staff, not an autonomous investment decision by the elderly.

Bank claims to have informed about risks, sales process complies with regulations

So, is this true? On March 20, the reporter visited CITIC Bank Zhengzhou Branch. An office staff member said that Jiaozuo Branch is under their jurisdiction and offered to send the interview outline via email for verification and a written reply.

On March 24, the staff sent an email showing that CITIC Bank Jiaozuo Branch responded that, after investigation, Ms. Guo’s parents purchased CITIC Trust’s代理保险产品—CITIC Prudential “Jin Fu Lian” Whole Life Insurance (Investment-Linked). The bank staff, during product introduction, had informed the clients that it was an insurance product, explicitly stating “Insurance is not a deposit, investment should be cautious.” Review of callback records confirmed that key information about the product’s nature, payment period, risks, and surrender losses was communicated, and clients were advised they could unconditionally surrender within a 15-day cooling-off period after policy issuance. The sales process complies with regulatory requirements.

They received the customer’s complaint and repeatedly communicated with Ms. Guo and her parents, patiently explaining product terms and sales procedures, and actively coordinated with the insurance company to provide policy information, surrender process guidance, and other services. They will continue to follow up on the customer’s demands and strictly promote proper resolution according to regulatory procedures.

Disagree with bank’s response, pre-sale disclosure cannot be replaced by follow-up calls

Ms. Guo clearly stated she does not agree with the bank’s reply. She believes that follow-up calls are part of the post-sale process and cannot offset the pre-sale obligation of disclosure.

She said that before the Spring Festival, CITIC Bank, CITIC Prudential, and the involved sales personnel reached a verbal agreement with her family: they promised to compensate 80% of the principal loss, the bank would pay an additional three years of holiday bonuses, and the salesperson would personally compensate 2,000 yuan. On the last day before the holiday, they agreed to sign an agreement after the New Year, but the other party then refused. The bank now claims it is negotiating with CITIC Prudential, with the main obstacle being approval from CITIC Prudential.

Ms. Guo also said her parents did their banking at the branch. Regarding the bank’s mention of mobile banking and online banking operations, her parents, over 55 years old at the time, did not have the ability to operate mobile banking independently, so it’s possible the bank staff operated or guided the process entirely.

Her father stated that the insurance contract involved has no signatures from him, essentially a blank insurance form, and demanded the bank produce signature evidence. He also said he never received a callback from the bank, only a call from the salesperson informing him that the documents were ready for pickup at the branch.

CITIC Bank Jiaozuo Branch clearly at fault, elderly can seek legal rights

Lawyer Zhao Yutao from Henan Yingtai Law Firm believes that, from a legal and industry standards perspective, CITIC Bank Jiaozuo Branch is clearly at fault. As the complaint indicates, the bank’s代理保险销售人员混淆储蓄与保险概念，未履行《保险销售行为管理办法》规定的如实告知义务，未充分提示投连险风险；同时存在疑似代为操作线上投保流程、合同无老人签字等不合规行为。

Zhao Yutao stated that the elderly can legally defend their rights: first, by invoking the Consumer Rights Protection Law to demand a full refund of premiums; second, by filing a complaint with the Jiaozuo branch of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission to investigate the misconduct; third, by collecting evidence such as transaction records and communication vouchers to file a lawsuit in court, seeking compensation for losses.

On the morning of April 1, the reporter reported this matter to CITIC Prudential Life’s customer service hotline. The staff said the case was registered and that a dedicated person would follow up with a reply.

On the same day, Ms. Guo sent a recording to the reporter, in which Wang, the branch manager of CITIC Jiaozuo, admitted that she had contacted the Prudential Jiaozuo branch manager by phone and that the agreement could only be signed after the video was taken down.

Ms. Guo explained that the other party demanded the deletion of the related report video to demonstrate their ability to fulfill commitments. She believes that the other party is untrustworthy, and the public opinion triggered was not caused by her but by their misconduct.

In response, the reporter contacted the Jiaozuo Regulatory Bureau of the China Financial Supervisory Authority. An official said the situation had been registered and was being processed according to procedures.

Previously, the reporter had repeatedly contacted CITIC Prudential Life Jiaozuo Center Branch, but had not received a response by the deadline. The Dahe Daily will continue to monitor the case’s development.

————————————

Source: Henan Daily Visual Media Center · Dahe Reporter Lü Gaojian

Editing: Wang Cong

Proofreading: Liu Ming

On-duty Supervisor: Zhong Yuqin

Review: Shi Yinan