Because the transfer process was operated by an intermediary company, and she thought she had encountered a routine loan, at the end of 20 19, Ms. Yu reported the case to the Shanghai Pudong police. At present, the police have filed an investigation, and the execution period of the house has been extended due to possible criminal cases.
I helped my friend borrow 6.5438+0.5 million. A year later, the mortgage debt became 2.88 million yuan.
According to Ms. Yu, on February 27th, 20 14 14, she borrowed RMB150,000 from an investment management company in Shanghai in her own name, and took a property in Pudong New Area of Shanghai as collateral. The two parties agreed that the loan of RMB 6,543,800+0,500 should pay interest of RMB 234,000 and handling fee of RMB 7,654,380+0,000; The loan term is one year, with interest paid every month and principal repaid in the last month. After deducting the handling fee of 76,5438+0,000 yuan, the company handled the mortgage loan procedures for Ms. Yu, and Ms. Yu received a loan of about 65,438+0 in 430 yuan and transferred it to a friend. Since then, she has paid interest of nearly 20,000 yuan per month.
2015165438+123 October, as the repayment date approached, Ms. Yu's friend found her again, hoping that she could help her to continue to apply for a loan, and introduced her to a Nuo Nuo pound customer who specializes in financing services. Pang entrusted Ms. Lin, a company employee, to handle the loan on her behalf.
The next day, Ms. Yu paid the bridge toll of over 72,000 yuan (short-term financing, similar to prepayment) and the service fee of115,000 yuan to her GBP customer. Ms. Yu signed a loan of over 2.3 million yuan with Ms. Lin, the agent of GBP customer, and agreed to borrow for one year, paying interest first and then principal, and paying interest of over 28,000 yuan every month. 20 15 12 1, Pounder lent RMB 2.3 million yuan to Ms. Wang's account.
"After the loan, I didn't get the most important mortgage contract. Of the 2.3 million, 6.5438+0.5 million was immediately transferred to the bridge company designated by Pounder, Nuo Nuo to repay the previous loan of 6.5438+0.5 million. The remaining 800,000,350,000 yuan is used to pay prepaid fees, service fees, notary fees and loan interest on the spot, and more than 440,000 yuan is reserved for the next transfer to the flat account. " Ms. Yu said.
In the face of such high additional cost, have you raised any objection? Ms. Yu said that considering that she was helping a friend borrow money, she didn't bear all the expenses, and because she trusted her friends for many years, she didn't care much about signing the contract.
Ms. Yu said that many details of the contract are not clear because the guarantee contract is not in hand. Later, when she dialed the counter-guarantee contract, she noticed that the amount of mortgage debt at that time was 2.88 million yuan, which was more than 500,000 yuan different from the actual loan amount of 2.3 million yuan, and the interest she had been repaying was calculated and charged according to the base of 2.88 million yuan.
"After signing a contract with Nuo Nuo pound for half a year, I actually only received 1.5 million yuan. Although I paid off the first loan of 6.5438+0.5 million, I owe Nuo Nuo 2.88 million pounds and pay high interest. " Ms. Yu said that from 20 14 to 20 18, after a dazzling creditor's rights transfer operation, her loan principal increased from 1.5 million to 4.3 million, but she actually got only 1.46 million yuan.
Dazzling five times, the loan principal soared from 6.5438+0.5 million to 4.3 million.
How did Ms. Yu's loan principal soar from 6.5438+0.5 million yuan to 4.3 million yuan in four years?
According to the data provided by Ms. Yu, such as the real estate mortgage loan contract 1030 10, Pounder has handled the transfer order for Ms. Yu five times, and the loan principal is increasing every time. Among them, the third loan was repaid by Nuo Nuo pound for one year one month before the maturity of the second loan, and the loan principal increased from 2.88 million yuan to 4 million yuan (including interest and service fee). During this period, Ms. Yu was asked to make additional loans. By the time of the fourth loan, the loan principal had reached 5.
"On May 4, 20 17, Ms. Lin came to me and said that the country was rectifying the financial market recently. In order to avoid being investigated, she asked me to cancel the previous 5.25 million mortgage, re-sign the loan contract and set up a mortgage. The loan and mortgage amount is 4.66 million yuan, and the interest is also charged at 4.66 million yuan. " Ms. Yu said that on the same day, Pounder entrusted Ms. Lin to re-sign a new Real Estate Mortgage Loan Contract, and agreed to borrow 4.66 million yuan from Pounder as collateral, with the term from May 4, 20 17 to June 3, 2065 438+065 438+065 438+065 438+07.
2065438+On May 25th, 2007, RMB 4.66 million was transferred to Ms. Lin's account, and then transferred back to Ms. Lin's account.
On June 20 17, 10, one month before the fifth loan was due, Ms. Lin found Ms. Yu again and told her that the loan creditor's rights had been taken over by another asset management company in Shanghai. After accounting, the next loan amount is finally set at 4.3 million yuan. Subsequently, Nuo Nuo Pounder canceled its mortgage loan of 4.66 million yuan, transferred it to a new company, and made a new real estate mortgage.
"2017165438+124 October, Ms. Lin operated three bank accounts and * * * transferred RMB 4.25 million to my account. Later, I was asked to transfer the money to her and her designated account to pay the bridge toll and loan. In the year of 65438+February 1, after hengfeng bank transferred 4.3 million yuan to my account, Ms. Lin asked me to transfer the money to her designated account. " Ms. Yu said that by the time of the last transfer, the GBP customer would add the unexpired interest and related handling fees previously owed to the new loan every time, and continue to add the principal amount to the actual loan amount to collect interest when handling the mortgage.
After that, according to Ms. Lin's request, Ms. Yu not only paid interest of 39,000 yuan per month, but also transferred 7023 yuan to her personal account. Afterwards, Ms. Yu realized that the money credited to her personal account was called the spread.
2065438+In July, 2008, Ms. Yu proposed to pay in advance, which was rejected by Ms. Lin. The content of the WeChat conversation between the two shows that Ms. Lin said that the prepayment deposit will not be refunded and it is not recommended to apply for prepayment.
"In fact, at this time, my loan creditor's rights were transferred to a small loan company in Chongqing. I asked the small loan company to issue mortgage procedures for my house and repay it in advance, but it was rejected. Later, I was asked to continue looking for Nuo Nuo Pound. " Ms. Yu said that with the repeated transfer of orders, Ms. Lin finally realized that she might have encountered a routine loan. So, from 2065438+July 2008, she stopped paying.
Interest.
According to her statistics, from 20 14 to July 20 18, she has spent more than 2.8 million yuan in interest and various handling fees.
Stop paying interest, become the defendant, failed in the second trial, and applied for retrial.
2065438+In June 2009, Ms. Yu was sued by a trading company in Yangzhong City, Jiangsu Province. The last two transfers of an asset management company in Shanghai and the above-mentioned small loan company were also listed as the third person in this case.
According to the civil judgment of the Jing 'an District Court in Shanghai, the plaintiff, a trading company in Yangzhong, claimed that Ms. Yu and her husband borrowed money from a third person, a small loan company in Chongqing, because they needed capital turnover to buy wood, and the two owners signed a personal loan contract and a mortgage contract. According to the contract, the loan principal is 4.3 million yuan, the annual interest rate is calculated at 1 1% of the loan principal, and the loan term is from 2017165438+1October 23rd to 20165438. Because Ms. Yu failed to settle the principal and interest on time, the third-party small loan company signed the Creditor's Rights Transfer Agreement with the plaintiff on March 20, 2065438+2009, and paid the creditor's rights transfer money.
During the trial, Ms. Yu proposed that she encountered a routine loan. After the loan expired, Ms. Yu could not find a small loan company and could not return the principal. Ms. Yu also said that the case was ostensibly a loan dispute caused by the transfer of creditor's rights, but in essence it was a high-interest loan and should be handed over to the police for handling. In addition, a trading company in Yangzhong City is not a financial institution, so it has no right to collect fines and does not recognize the agreed interest rate standard.
The Jing 'an District Court of Shanghai held that the case did not involve a crime. On June 30, 2020, the first-instance judgment was made: Ms. Yu had to pay interest, plaintiff's attorney's fees, case acceptance fees and other expenses in addition to the principal of 4.3 million yuan.
Ms. Yu appealed and the court of second instance upheld the original judgment. Because she thinks that her borrowing process is very similar to conventional borrowing, Ms. Yu filed a retrial application with the Shanghai High Court. At present, the Shanghai High Court has accepted Ms. Yu's application for retrial.
"In fact, we don't know that she borrowed money to repay the last loan. At present, she has applied for retrial, or it is mainly based on court decisions. " The staff member said.
Suspected of non-smoking crime, the person in charge of the intermediary company was arrested.
During the first trial, Ms. Yu also reported the case to Pudong Branch of Shanghai Public Security Bureau on the grounds of being cheated. On June 22, 2020, 65438+, Pudong Branch filed a case.
"I think the principal that should be repaid is 6.5438+0.5 million yuan, not 4.3 million yuan." Ms. Yu said. Now, every few days, she will receive the dunning information from her creditors. As of August 30, she still needs to pay more than 7.6 million yuan in principal and interest and various expenses.
According to the industrial and commercial registration data, Nuo Nuo Pounder Financial Information Service Co., Ltd. was established on June 2, 2009, and its business scope includes financial information service, asset management and investment management. Of the 123 lawsuits related to the company, 78 were related to borrowing, and Ms. Yu's borrowing experience is not a case.
On July 2nd, 20021year, Nuo Nuo Pounder Company was listed in the list of business anomalies by Shanghai Jing 'an District Market Supervision Administration because it failed to publicize its annual report within the time limit stipulated in the Provisional Regulations on Enterprise Information Publicity. The registered company phone number is displayed as an empty number.
According to the official report of Pudong Branch of Shanghai Public Security Bureau on February 3, 20 19, on February 201KLOC-0/65438, the bureau filed an investigation against Wheat Asset Company on suspicion of illegally absorbing public deposits. In the same year165438+1October 24th, the police took criminal compulsory measures against the company's legal representative Huang, co-founder Yang Momin and other 15 suspects, and seized relevant assets involved.
After investigation, Wheat Asset Company illegally absorbed deposits from unspecified public through online financial platforms such as "Wheat Financial Service Wealth" and "Grandpa God of Wealth" without obtaining the permission of relevant national financial qualifications. Wheat loan, white-collar workers, white-collar treasury, malt staging and big landlords involved in wheat assets company are all foreign loan platforms, and all the funds involved are available.
On June 65438+1October 12, 2020, Shanghai Pudong Public Security Bureau issued a circular again, saying that after the incident, 15 suspects involved in the case had been taken criminal compulsory measures by the public security organs according to law. Among them, Huang, the legal representative of Wheat Assets Company, Yang Momin, the co-founder, and other 14 suspects were arrested by the procuratorate according to law. By then, the public security organs have initially recovered more than 50 million yuan in cash, and have seized and frozen relevant bank accounts, real estate and equity.
In addition, the public security organs have obtained the platform data of "Wheat Jin Fu Fortune" and "Grandpa God of Wealth" involved in Wheat Asset Company, and at the same time, they have hired judicial audit institutions to confirm the funds lent by investors and trace the whereabouts of the funds. At present, the case is under further investigation.
It belongs to the method of "balancing accounts" in conventional loans, and lawyers claim that it is illegal to deposit or deposit three kinds.
Ms. Yu said that in her entire loan, her creditor's rights were frequently transferred, which were all done by Nuo Nuo pound traders, and she didn't know the purpose of the other party's doing so.
In response to Ms. Yu's experience, Wang Dong, a lawyer from Beijing Yingke (Shanghai) Law Firm, said that what Ms. Yu called "transferring orders", in layman's terms, was to repay the original "old loan" with the "new loan" of the next company, and the high interest and expenses caused by the "old loan" were included in the principal of the "new loan", and then the high interest continued to be calculated with the increased principal. This is equivalent to the phenomenon of "rolling interest" in private lending, which eventually leads to high debts.
Lawyer Wang Dong analyzed that this matter may involve three types of illegal situations.
The first is the identification of "professional lenders". The Supreme People's Court's "People's Nine Minutes" stipulates that legal persons who have not obtained the qualification of lending subject according to law, as well as unincorporated organizations or natural persons engaged in private lending, shall be deemed invalid according to law. Therefore, in this incident, it is not in compliance with the law for companies without relevant lending qualifications to engage in professional lending.
Lawyer Wang Dong said that in such cases, from the perspective of litigation practice, borrowers will encounter great difficulties in responding to and giving evidence. The main difficulty is that loan companies often ask borrowers to sign blank contracts and do not deliver the original contracts to borrowers. The relevant signing and mortgage operations are all done by so-called intermediary companies. Therefore, in private lending, the signing subject, the actual lender, the interest-receiving subject and the repayment subject of the loan contract are usually inconsistent, thus cutting off the upstream and downstream links of the whole lending business chain, resulting in the borrower finally repaying a considerable amount of money, but it is difficult to offset the principal and interest under the loan contract.
Related questions and answers: