>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
No. 9 of Ten Noteworthy Financial Cases in Shanghai Courts of 2018: Agreements executed by Commercial Factoring Companies on Lending through P2P Platforms are Void and Invalid - The case of Commercial Factoring Company B v. Company A on Dispute over Lending Agreement
2018年度上海法院金融商事审判十大案例之九:乙商业保理公司与甲公司等借款合同纠纷案——商业保理公司通过P2P平台放贷为无效合同
【法宝引证码】

No. 9 of Ten Noteworthy Financial Cases in Shanghai Courts of 2018: Agreements executed by Commercial Factoring Companies on Lending through P2P Platforms are Void and Invalid - The case of Commercial Factoring Company B v. Company A on Dispute over Lending Agreement
2018年度上海法院金融商事审判十大案例之九:乙商业保理公司与甲公司等借款合同纠纷案——商业保理公司通过P2P平台放贷为无效合同
No. 9 of Ten Noteworthy Financial Cases in Shanghai Courts of 2018: Agreements executed by Commercial Factoring Companies on Lending through P2P Platforms are Void and Invalid - The case of Commercial Factoring Company B v. Company A on Dispute over Lending Agreement 2018年度上海法院金融商事审判十大案例之九:乙商业保理公司与甲公司等借款合同纠纷案——商业保理公司通过P2P平台放贷为无效合同
[Gist] 【裁判要旨】
Commercial factoring companies which lend loans to unspecified persons through P2P online lending platform should be held as having gone beyond their scopes of business and violated applicable laws and regulations on restricted operation, franchised operation and forbidden operation, and such lending agreements should be ruled as void and invalid. 商业保理公司通过P2P平台向不特定对象放贷,因超越经营范围并违反国家限制经营、特许经营以及法律、行政法规禁止经营规定,应认定借款合同无效。
[Facts] 基本案情
On January 12, 2018, with the match of a P2P platform, Commercial Factoring Company B lent RMB300,000 to Company A and signed aLending Agreement offline, specifying the loan amount, loan term, interest rate, service charges, etc. Company A failed to pay the principal and interest as agreed, and Commercial Factoring Company B claimed against Company A for liability for breach of contract. The Court found that Commercial Factoring Company B's scope of business covered import and export factoring, domestic and offshore factoring and consulting services relating to commercial factoring, and it was involved in three similar cases at the same time, all caused by lending through the same P2P platform. 2018年1月12日,经某P2P平台撮合,乙商业保理公司向甲公司出借款项30万元,并于线下签订了《借款协议》,约定了借款金额、借款期限、利率、服务费等。后甲公司未按约偿还本息,乙商业保理公司要求甲公司承担违约责任。经查明,乙商业保理公司营业执照中的经营范围为进出口保理业务、国内及离岸保理业务、与商业保理相关的咨询服务,且其同期在法院类似案件有三件,均系通过同一P2P平台放贷引发的纠纷。
...... 裁判结果
 上海市浦东新区人民法院于2018年10月12日作出(2018)沪0115民初36585号民事判决:乙商业保理公司和甲公司签订的《借款协议》为无效合同,甲公司返还乙商业保理公司借款本金30万元并支付自《借款协议》到期日起按银行同期贷款利率计算的利息损失。一审宣判后,双方当事人均未上诉,判决已发生法律效力。
 裁判理由
 法院认为:商业保理公司原由商务部负责监管,目前由银保监会负责监管,具备准金融机构的特点。根据《商务部关于商业保理试点有关工作的通知》的规定,商业保理公司为企业提供贸易融资、销售分户账管理、客户资信调查与评估、应收账款管理与催收、信用风险担保等服务,不得从事吸收存款、发放贷款等金融活动。一方面,根据《中华人民共和国银行业监督管理法》第十九条规定,未经国务院银行业监督管理机构批准,任何单位或者个人不得设立银行业金融机构或者从事银行业金融机构的业务活动。乙商业保理公司作为准金融机构,通过与P2P平台合作,向不特定对象发放贷款,具备了经营性特征,亦非为解决资金困难或生产急需偶然为之。故乙商业保理公司违反了《中华人民共和国银行业监督管理法》的强制性规定,符合《中华人民共和国合同法》第五十二条规定的合同无效的情形。另一方面,根据《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国合同法〉若干问题的解释(一) 》第十条规定,当事人超越经营范围订立合同,人民法院不因此认定合同无效,但违反国家限制经营、特许经营以及法律、行政法规禁止经营规定的除外。商业保理公司应在监管机构允许的经营范围内从事业务,由监管机构监管的金融机构及准金融机构从事发放贷款业务,属于特许经营的范围,须取得相应的资质。乙商业保理公司经营范围中不包括发放贷款,其超越经营范围发放贷款,违反了国家限制经营、特许经营的规定,故涉案《借款协议》应为无效合同。
 ......

Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥200.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese