本文選題：出借人 + 財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)益�。� 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：P2P網(wǎng)貸是互聯(lián)網(wǎng)金融的一員,是民間借貸的重要渠道之一,其具有突破地域局限、門檻松、放貸快、利率低(較傳統(tǒng)民間借貸)等特點(diǎn),彌補(bǔ)傳統(tǒng)銀行業(yè)金融機(jī)構(gòu)融資的不足,其在民間融資中大受歡迎。但P2P網(wǎng)貸出借人財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)益損害的現(xiàn)象屢見不鮮,大大挫傷出借人在P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)投資的積極性,阻礙了P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)的發(fā)展。筆者力求分析P2P網(wǎng)貸出借人財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)益損害的成因并提出針對性的法律制度建議�！睹耖g借貸司法解釋》允許P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)在特定情形下為出借人債權(quán)提供擔(dān)保,借款人違約的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)從出借人轉(zhuǎn)嫁給P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái),有利于出借人出借資金的積極性和權(quán)益保障,但P2P網(wǎng)貸監(jiān)管政策卻否定P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)可為出借人債權(quán)擔(dān)保,導(dǎo)致P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)審核借款人信用狀況的隨意性。且上述規(guī)范性文件之間的矛盾亦導(dǎo)致針對網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)擔(dān)保的行政處罰和民事判決的矛盾。筆者認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)修改P2P網(wǎng)貸監(jiān)管政策與《民間借貸司法解釋》一致,允許P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)為出借人債權(quán)提供擔(dān)保,在修改監(jiān)管政策之前,可通過行政判決,撤銷對P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)擔(dān)保的行政處罰,使得有關(guān)禁止P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)為出借人債權(quán)擔(dān)保的監(jiān)管政策在事實(shí)上失效。此外,現(xiàn)有的P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)依據(jù)《公司法》等法律成立,沒有最低注冊資本和注冊資本實(shí)繳制的限制,導(dǎo)致P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)的擔(dān)保能力有限,不利于出借人擔(dān)保債權(quán)的實(shí)現(xiàn)。筆者認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)在《網(wǎng)貸暫行辦法》中規(guī)定P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)的最低注冊資本并規(guī)定注冊資本實(shí)繳制。P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)亦可引入擔(dān)保公司擔(dān)保出借人債權(quán),但擔(dān)保公司往往因利益驅(qū)使違規(guī)擔(dān)保,若出現(xiàn)大規(guī)模的借款違約,擔(dān)保公司可能進(jìn)入破產(chǎn)程序,出借人作為一般債權(quán)人可能僅按照債權(quán)的比例受償。筆者認(rèn)為,P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)應(yīng)謹(jǐn)慎審查其引入的擔(dān)保公司的擔(dān)保余額,否則應(yīng)承擔(dān)與其過錯(cuò)程度相當(dāng)?shù)膿?dān)保補(bǔ)充責(zé)任。存管制度可實(shí)現(xiàn)網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)資金與客戶資金的隔離,有效防止P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)集資詐騙罪,但由于存管制度網(wǎng)絡(luò)架構(gòu)成本高,不施行存管制度的違法成本又低,導(dǎo)致P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)怠于推行存管制度。筆者認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)在《網(wǎng)貸暫行辦法》中增加“吊銷執(zhí)照”這一行政處罰措施,使得不施行存管制度的P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)消滅,有效防范集資詐騙罪。P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)在網(wǎng)上運(yùn)營,出借人地域分布廣,若平臺(tái)涉嫌集資詐騙罪,被害人人數(shù)往往眾多,涉案金額也大,但刑法并未對P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)集資詐騙罪進(jìn)行特殊規(guī)定以體現(xiàn)其社會(huì)危害性大的特殊性。筆者認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)在《非法集資司法解釋》第五條中增設(shè)一款,對P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)涉嫌集資詐騙罪的犯罪數(shù)額標(biāo)準(zhǔn)比照其他類型的集資詐騙罪的犯罪數(shù)額標(biāo)準(zhǔn)減半,加大P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)集資詐騙罪的打擊力度。
[Abstract]:P2P network loan is a member of Internet finance and one of the important channels of private lending. It has the characteristics of breaking through regional limitations, loose threshold, fast lending, low interest rate (compared with traditional private lending), and so on, which makes up for the shortage of traditional banking financial institutions' financing. It is popular in private financing. However, the phenomenon of property rights and interests damage of P2P network lenders is common, which greatly dampens the enthusiasm of lenders to invest in P2P network lending platform, and hinders the development of P2P network loan platform. The author tries to analyze the causes of the damage to the property rights and interests of the loan lenders in P2P networks and puts forward some specific legal system suggestions. The Judicial interpretation of Folk Lending allows P2P network lending platforms to provide security for lenders' claims under certain circumstances. The risk of borrower default is transferred from the lender to the P2P network loan platform, which is conducive to the enthusiasm and protection of the lender's rights and interests, but the P2P network loan supervision policy denies that the P2P network loan platform can guarantee the creditor's rights. Lead to P2P network loan platform audit of the borrower's credit status at will. The contradiction between the above-mentioned normative documents also leads to the contradiction between the administrative penalty and the civil judgment for the net loan platform guarantee. The author thinks that the supervision policy of P2P network loan should be revised in accordance with the judicial interpretation of folk lending, allowing the P2P network loan platform to provide guarantee for the creditor's rights. Before the modification of the supervision policy, the author can pass an administrative judgment. The cancellation of the administrative punishment on the guarantee of P2P network loan platform makes the supervision policy of prohibiting P2P network loan platform from being a creditor's creditor's right guarantee invalidate in fact. In addition, the existing P2P network loan platform is established according to the law of Company Law, and there is no restriction of minimum registered capital and registered capital payment system, which leads to the limited guarantee ability of P2P network loan platform, which is not conducive to the realization of the creditor's guarantee rights. The author thinks that the minimum registered capital of P2P net loan platform should be stipulated in the interim measures of net loan, and that the registered capital payment system. P2P net loan platform can also introduce guarantee company guarantee lender's creditor's rights. However, the guarantee company often because of the interests of illegal guarantee, if there is a large-scale loan default, the guarantee company may enter into bankruptcy proceedings, the lender as a general creditor may only be paid according to the proportion of the debt. The author thinks that the P2P network loan platform should carefully examine the guarantee balance of the guarantee company it introduces, otherwise, it should bear the supplementary responsibility of guarantee which is equivalent to its fault degree. The storage and management system can realize the separation between the network loan platform funds and the customer funds, and effectively prevent the P2P network loan platform from the crime of financing fraud, but because of the high cost of the network structure of the storage and management system, the illegal cost of not implementing the deposit management system is also low. Lead to P2P network loan platform in the implementation of deposit management system. The author thinks that we should add the administrative penalty measure of "revocation of license" in the interim measures of net loan, so that the P2P network loan platform that does not carry out the storage and management system will be eliminated, and the P2P network loan platform should be effectively prevented from running on the network. Lenders are widely distributed in the region, if the platform is suspected of fund-raising fraud, the number of victims is often large, involved in a large amount of money, but the criminal law does not have a special provision for P2P network lending platform financing fraud to reflect its social harm of the particularity. In my opinion, we should add a paragraph in Article 5 of the "illegal financing Judicial interpretation" to halve the amount of criminal amount of the peer-to-peer network loan platform suspected of fund-raising fraud as compared with that of other types of fund-raising fraud. Increase P2P network loan platform to raise funds to fight the crime of fraud.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D922.282

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 趙磊;劉安雄;;我國P2P網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸平臺(tái)檔案信息現(xiàn)狀[J];武漢金融;2017年02期

2 施慧洪;黃藝偉;;我國P2P網(wǎng)貸的主要模式、案例分析及比較[J];商業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)研究;2015年34期

3 王紅衛(wèi);廖希飛;;行政訴訟中規(guī)范性文件附帶審查制度研究[J];行政法學(xué)研究;2015年06期

4 黃硯麗;;P2P網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸平臺(tái)的法律問題研究[J];法律適用;2015年11期

5 丁亮華;;參與分配:解析與檢討[J];法學(xué)家;2015年05期

6 李曉明;;P2P網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸的刑法控制[J];法學(xué);2015年06期

7 伍堅(jiān);;我國P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)監(jiān)管的制度構(gòu)建[J];法學(xué);2015年04期

8 劉然;;我國P2P網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸平臺(tái)的法律性質(zhì)[J];法學(xué)雜志;2015年04期

9 孫婷;;2013年《公司法》修改的解讀與思考[J];法制博覽;2015年11期

10 李平;陳林;李強(qiáng);馮毅;趙洪江;;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)金融的發(fā)展與研究綜述[J];電子科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2015年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：1811049