A new judicial regulation concerning the interests of 7 billion bank card holders is expected to be released.

On the 6th, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Bank Card Civil Dispute Cases" (Draft for Comments) (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"), clarifying how to trial credit card overdraft interest charges and counterfeit cards. Transaction and other dispute cases.

In recent years, as the number of cardholders has grown, related disputes have exploded. However, there have always been differences in judicial practice and the operations are not uniform. Chen Tingting, a lawyer at Beijing Dacheng (Shanghai) Law Firm, said that this judicial interpretation has actually been called for by the industry for a long time. Once implemented, it will force commercial banks to further enhance their compliance awareness, optimize their business processes, and more actively fulfill their reasonable reminder and security obligations. .

The "overlord clause" of full interest calculation is expected to be broken

The main contents of the "Regulations" include credit card overdrafts, counterfeit card transactions, online fraud, and procedural issues during the trial. Very targeted.

Among them, Article 2 of the "Regulations" clearly provides two solutions for the issue of full interest accrual on credit cards.

First, the cardholder chooses the minimum repayment method to repay the credit card overdraft and has repaid the minimum repayment, and the cardholder claims to pay the overdraft interest from the accounting date to the repayment date based on the outstanding overdraft amount. , the People's Court should support it.

Second, the card issuing bank did not provide reasonable reminders on the terms of "repayment of credit card overdrafts according to the minimum repayment amount, and overdraft interest from the accounting date to the repayment date shall be charged based on the entire overdraft amount" If the cardholder claims that the overdraft interest shall be calculated based on the outstanding overdraft amount, the people's court shall support it. Although the card issuer has fulfilled its obligations of reasonable reminders and explanations, the cardholder has repaid 90% of the entire overdraft amount. If the cardholder claims that the overdraft interest should be calculated based on the outstanding amount, the people's court should support it.

The so-called full interest calculation, also called "full penalty interest", means that even though part of the repayment has been made, interest is still calculated based on the total overdraft amount. It is a credit card interest calculation principle commonly used by banks for many years. , is an "overlord clause" in which the bank drafts the relevant agreement and the cardholder passively chooses to agree, and both parties are not equal.

Now the Supreme Court has given two plans. Chen Tingting explained that in the first plan, no matter how complete the "full penalty interest" clause is in form, as long as the cardholder repays the money and raises an objection, the court will follow Penalty interest will be calculated based on the actual amount owed; the second option basically supports the bank’s claim, but the premise is that the bank must fulfill its reasonable reminder obligations and the cardholder’s repayment does not reach 90%.

The "Regulations" also specify the interest rate range, which is consistent with the private lending interest rate regulations. The "Regulations" clearly state that if the annual interest rate for payment of overdraft interest, compound interest, liquidated damages, etc. is less than 24, the people's court shall support it, but it shall not support it if it exceeds 36; between 24 and 36, the cardholder shall voluntarily pay and then request The people's court will not support the return.

For a long time, the interest and late payment fees on credit card overdrafts have been calculated based on compound interest, and the calculated annualized interest rate is far more than 36. Most cardholders may not be very clear about this.

Another highlight of the "Regulations" is the emphasis on evidence issues, which covers the specific methods of producing evidence (types of evidence) under different circumstances, the obligation to submit evidence, and the ultimate burden of adverse consequences of producing evidence. At the same time, the responsibilities of third-party payment and telecom operators have been clarified in online fraud, which will facilitate the trial of disputes such as counterfeit card transactions and online fraud.

Force banks to adjust interest calculation rules?

The reason why the Supreme People's Court plans to issue the above-mentioned "Regulations" is not unrelated to the explosive growth of bank card disputes caused by credit card overdrafts, counterfeit card transactions, and online fraud in recent years.

Data from the central bank show that as of the end of the first quarter of 2018, the number of bank cards in use across the country was 7.013 billion, an increase of 4.79% from the previous quarter. Among them, the number of debit cards in use was 6.4 billion, a month-on-month increase of 4.84%; the number of credit cards and debit and credit cards in use was 612 million, a month-on-month increase of 4.23%.

Related disputes will naturally increase.

According to the 2017 "Trial White Paper on the Protection of Financial Consumer Rights and Interests" released by the Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court, among the financial consumer dispute cases accepted, credit card disputes accounted for the largest number, with 19,830 cases, accounting for 60.82%.

It is understood that the causes of disputes caused by credit cards are mainly concentrated on malicious overdrafts, restoration of credit records, sky-high late payment fees, etc. However, for disputes caused by the "full interest calculation" method, it is difficult for the court to make unified judgments, and the trial process is more "troublesome". In May 2017, a cardholder spent nearly 20,000 yuan with a credit card, but the balance of the savings card bound to automatic repayment was insufficient. About 70 yuan was left unpaid. After 10 days, about 300 yuan of interest accrued, and he was " Interest is accrued in full”. The cardholder thought it was unreasonable and took the bank to court. As a result, he lost the first instance and won the second instance after the verdict was changed.

How to adjudicate dispute cases caused by this "full interest calculation" method has been clarified in the above-mentioned "Regulations", indicating possible adjudication paths.

Chen Tingting said that the "Regulations" have a strong role in reducing the friction between the current law and reality, unifying the judicial case trial ideas, and constructing a specific "rights protection map" on the basis of balancing the protection of the rights of all parties. practical significance.

After the above-mentioned cases were concluded, some people in the industry suggested that banks adjust their interest calculation rules. However, bank credit card income mainly relies on card processing fees and interest. The current interest calculation rules are obviously more beneficial to card issuers. It remains to be seen whether the "Regulations" will force banks to proactively adjust the interest calculation rules.