Shanghai old couple called the police: borrowed 1.5 million

Every few days, 62-year-old Ms. Yu and her husband, who live in Shanghai, receive debt collection messages from their creditors. In just 14 days, Ms. Yu's repayment interest increased by more than 50,000 yuan. In the past four years, Ms. Yu's loan claims were "transferred" many times, from the loan principal of 1.5 million yuan to the arrears of principal and interest of 7.6 million yuan, but the actual money she received was only 1.46 million yuan.

Because the transfer process was operated by an intermediary company, and she believed that she had encountered a routine loan, Ms. Yu reported the case to the Shanghai Pudong Police at the end of 2019. At present, the police have opened a case for investigation. Due to possible criminal cases, the execution period of the house has been extended.

I borrowed 1.5 million for a friend. One year later, the mortgage debt became 2.88 million.

Ms. Yu introduced that on December 27, 2014, through a friend’s introduction, she borrowed 1.5 million yuan from an investment management company in Shanghai in her own name, and used A property in Pudong New District, Shanghai was used as a mortgage. The two parties agreed that a loan of 1.5 million yuan should pay interest of 234,000 yuan and a handling fee of 71,000 yuan; the loan period is one year, with monthly interest payments and principal repayment in the last month. After deducting a handling fee of 71,000 yuan, the company handled the mortgage loan procedures for Ms. Yu. Ms. Yu received a loan of approximately 1.43 million yuan and transferred it to a friend. Since then, she has repaid nearly 20,000 yuan in interest every month.

On November 23, 2015, as the repayment date approached, Ms. Yu’s friend approached her again, hoping that she could help her continue to apply for a loan, and introduced her to Nuo, a company specializing in financing services. Nordic guest. Pang Deke appointed company employee Ms. Lin to handle the loan on his behalf.

The next day, after Ms. Yu paid a bridge fee of more than 72,000 yuan (short-term financing, similar to a prepayment) and a service fee of 115,000 yuan to the British pound customer, Ms. Yu and the British pound customer agent Ms. Lin A loan of more than 2.3 million yuan was signed. It was agreed that the loan would be borrowed for one year and the interest would be repaid first and then the principal. The monthly interest repayment would be more than 28,000 yuan. On December 1, 2015, Lianke lent more than 2.3 million yuan to Ms. Yu’s account.

"After the loan, the most important "Real Estate Mortgage Loan Contract" was not given to me. 1.5 million of the 2.3 million was immediately transferred to the bridge company designated by Nono Lingke to repay the previous 1.5 million. Loan. The remaining 800,000 and 350,000 were used to pay prepaid fees, service fees, notary fees, and loan interest on the spot, and more than 440,000 were reserved for various expenses for the next transfer to the account." Ms. Yu said.

Have you raised any objections in the face of such high additional costs? Ms. Yu said that considering that she was borrowing money for a friend, all the expenses were not borne by herself, and because she had trusted her friend for many years, she didn’t care much about signing the contract.

Ms. Yu said that because she did not have the "Guarantee Contract" in hand, she was not very clear about many details of the contract. Later, when she called 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 based on the base of 2.88 million yuan. charged.

"Six months after signing with Nono Pound, I actually received only 1.5 million yuan. Although I paid off the first loan of 1.5 million yuan, I owed Nono Pound 2.88 million yuan and paid high "The amount of interest." Ms. Yu said that from 2014 to 2018, after a dazzling debt transfer operation by Lianke, her loan principal increased from 1.5 million to 4.3 million, but she actually received only 1.46 million yuan.

A dizzying five times, the loan principal soared from 1.5 million to 4.3 million.

How did Ms. Yu’s loan principal soar from 1.5 million yuan to 4.3 million yuan in 4 years?

According to the information provided by Ms. Yu, such as "Real Estate Mortgage Loan Contract" 103010, Lianke has processed 5 transfer orders for Ms. Yu, and the loan principal is increasing each time. Among them, the third loan was repaid by Nono Pound for one year one month before the second loan expired, and the principal of the loan increased from 2.88 million yuan to 4 million yuan (the principal includes interest and service fees). During this period, Ms. Yu was asked to borrow additional money. By the fourth loan, the loan principal had reached 5

"On May 4, 2017, 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 The previous mortgage of 5.25 million was written off, the loan contract was re-signed, the loan and mortgage amount was set to 4.66 million yuan, and the interest was also charged at 4.66 million yuan.

"Ms. Yu said that on that day, Lianke appointed Ms. Lin to sign a new "Real Estate Mortgage Loan Contract" with Lianke, agreeing to borrow 4.66 million yuan from Lianke as a mortgage for a period from May 4, 2017 to November 3, 2017.

On May 25, 2017, after the "loan" of 4.66 million yuan was transferred to Ms. Yu's account, it was immediately transferred back to Ms. Lin's account.

In October 2017, One month before the five loans expired, Ms. Lin approached Ms. Yu again and told her that the loan claim had been taken over by another asset management company in Shanghai. After calculation, the next round of loan amount was finally set at 4.3 million yuan. The customer canceled his 4.66 million yuan mortgage loan, transferred it to a new company, and made a new real estate mortgage.

"On November 24, 2017, Ms. Lin operated three bank accounts,* **Transfer 4.25 million yuan to my account. Later, I was asked to transfer the money to her and the account she designated to use to pay bridge tolls and loans. On December 1 of that year, after Hengfeng Bank transferred 4.3 million 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, Lianke would add the undue interest and related handling fees of the previous arrears to the new loan every time, and continue to falsely add the principal amount to the actual amount when applying for a mortgage. Interest will be charged on the loan amount.

Afterwards, in accordance with Ms. Lin’s request, in addition to paying interest of 39,000 yuan a month, Ms. Yu also had to transfer 7,023 yuan into her personal account. The money transferred to the personal account is called interest rate difference.

In July 2018, Ms. Yu proposed early repayment, but Ms. Lin refused. According to the WeChat conversation between the two, Ms. Lin said that the early repayment deposit was not allowed. It is not recommended to apply for early repayment.

“In fact, at this time, my loan claim was transferred to a small loan company in Chongqing. I asked the small loan company to issue a mortgage for my house and repay it early, but it was still rejected. Later, I was asked to continue the search for Nono Pound. "Ms. Yu said that with the transfer of orders again and again, Ms. Lin finally realized that she might have encountered a routine loan. So, starting from July 2018, she stopped paying interest.

Interest.< /p>

According to her statistics, from 2014 to July 2018, she has spent more than 2.8 million yuan in interest and various handling fees.

The defendant stopped paying interest. , lost the two trials and applied for retrial

In June 2019, Ms. Yu was sued to court by a trading company in Yangzhong City, Jiangsu Province, and was brought to court by an asset management company in Shanghai that had been transferred to the company twice. and the above-mentioned small loan company were also listed as the third party in the case.

According to the "Civil Judgment" of the Jing'an District Court in Shanghai, the plaintiff, a trading company in Yangzhong City, said that Ms. Yu and her husband were involved in the case. Purchasing timber requires capital turnover and borrows money from a third party, a small loan company in Chongqing. The two parties signed a "Personal Loan Contract" and a "Mortgage Contract". The contract stipulates that the loan principal is 4.3 million yuan and the annual interest rate is 11% of the loan principal. Calculated, the loan period is from November 23, 2017 to November 23, 2018. Because Ms. Yu failed to settle the principal and interest on time, the third party, a small loan company, repeatedly called for it to no avail. In order to recover it as soon as possible. The fund signed a "Credit Transfer Agreement" with the plaintiff on March 20, 2019, and paid the credit transfer fee.

During the trial, Ms. Yu mentioned that she encountered a routine loan, and after the loan expired, Ms. Yu found her. The principal cannot be returned to the small loan company. Ms. Yu also said that the case was superficially a loan dispute caused by the transfer of creditor's rights, but it was essentially a loan sharking and should be transferred to the police. In addition, a trading company in Yangzhong City is not a financial company. The agency has no right to charge fines and does not recognize the agreed interest rate standard.

After hearing the case, the Shanghai Jing’an District Court held that the case did not involve a crime and made a first-instance judgment on June 30, 2020: In addition to paying the principal of 4.3 million yuan, Ms. Yu also had to pay interest, plaintiff's attorney fees, case acceptance fees and other expenses.

Ms. Yu appealed, and the second instance court upheld the original judgment because she had borrowed money. The process is very similar to that of routine loans. Ms. Yu applied for retrial to the Shanghai High Court. At present, the Shanghai High Court has accepted Ms. Yu’s retrial application.

“Actually, we don’t know her. Borrowing money is to repay a previous loan. At present, she has applied for a retrial, and the court's decision is still the main one. "The staff member said.

On suspicion of non-intoxication, the person in charge of the agency was arrested

During the first trial, Ms. Yu also reported the case to the Pudong Branch of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau on the grounds of being defrauded. On January 22, 2020, the Pudong Branch opened the case.

“I think the principal that should be repaid is 1.5 million yuan, not 4.3 million yuan.” Ms. Yu said. Now she receives debt collection messages from creditors every few days. As of August 30, she still needs to pay more than 7.6 million yuan in principal, interest, and various fees.

Industrial and commercial registration data show that Shanghai Nono Financial Information Services Co., Ltd. was established on June 12, 2009. Its business scope includes financial information services, asset management, investment management, etc. Of the 123 legal proceedings related to the company, 78 were related to borrowing, and Ms. Yu’s borrowing experience was not an isolated case.

On July 2, 2021, Nuonuo Lianke Company was also listed as operating abnormally by the Shanghai Jing'an District Market Supervision and Administration Bureau for failing to publish its annual report in accordance with the deadline stipulated in the "Interim Regulations on Enterprise Information Disclosure" directory. The registered company phone number is displayed as an empty number.

According to an official report from the Pudong Branch of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau on December 3, 2019, on November 23, 2019, the bureau opened a case for investigation against Maizi Asset Company on suspicion of illegally absorbing public deposits. On November 24 of the same year, the police took criminal coercive measures in accordance with the law against 15 suspects, including the company's legal representative Huang Mourong and co-founder Yang Moumin, and seized the relevant assets involved.

After investigation, Maizi Asset Company illegally collected deposits from unspecified members of the public through online financial management platforms such as "Maiz Financial Wealth" and "Grandpa Caishen" without obtaining relevant national financial qualifications. . The "Maizi Loan", "White Collar", "White Collar Treasury", "Maiya Installment" and "Big Landlord" involved in Mazi Asset Company are all external borrowing platforms, and the funds involved are all funds involved in the case.

On January 12, 2020, the Shanghai Pudong Public Security Bureau issued another notice stating that after the incident, 15 criminal suspects involved in the case had been subject to criminal compulsory measures by the public security organs in accordance with the law. Among them, 14 suspects including Huang Mourong, the legal representative of Maizi Asset Company, and Yang Moumin, the co-founder, were arrested by the procuratorate in accordance with the law. As of that time, the public security organs had initially recovered more than 50 million yuan in cash, and had seized and frozen relevant bank accounts, real estate, equity and other properties.

In addition, the public security organs have obtained the data of the "Maizi Financial Wealth "God of Wealth" platform involved in Maizi Asset Company, and hired a judicial audit agency to confirm the funds lent by each investor and trace the whereabouts of the funds. At present, the case is under further investigation.

It is a method of "settling accounts" in routine loans. The lawyer said that there may be three types of violations

Ms. Yu said that throughout her loan, other Frequent transfers of claims were all done by Nono Lingke, and she didn’t know what the other party’s purpose was.

In response to Ms. Yu’s experience, Wang from Beijing Yingke (Shanghai) Law Firm. Lawyer Dong said that what Ms. Yu refers to as "transfer", in layman's terms, means using the next company's "new loan" to repay the original "old loan", which will result in high interest and various other expenses on the "old loan". The fees are included in the principal of the "new loan", and then high interest is calculated on the increased principal. This is equivalent to the "interest compounding" phenomenon in private lending, which ultimately leads to high debt.

Lawyer Wang Dong analyzed that this matter may involve three types of violations.

First, regarding the identification of "professional lenders", the Supreme People's Court's "Nine People's Minutes" stipulate that those who have not obtained the qualification for lending in accordance with the law. Private lending activities conducted by legal persons engaged in private lending, as well as unincorporated organizations or natural persons engaged in private lending, shall be deemed invalid in accordance with the law. Therefore, in this incident, it is illegal for companies without relevant lending qualifications to engage in professional lending activities. Does not comply with legal provisions.

Lawyer Wang Dong said that from the perspective of litigation practice, borrowers will encounter great difficulties when responding to lawsuits and providing evidence. The main difficulty is that loan companies often require borrowers to sign. The contract is blank and the original contract is not delivered to the borrower. The relevant signing, mortgage and other operations are completed by the so-called intermediary company. This leads to the signing of the loan contract, the actual lending entity, the interest collecting entity and the receiving repayment entity in private lending. The main entities are usually inconsistent, thus cutting off the upstream and downstream links of the entire lending business chain, resulting in the borrower finally repaying a considerable part of the amount, but it is difficult to offset the principal and interest under the loan contract.