P2P網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸平臺債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式存廢論
發(fā)布時間：2019-06-06 07:20
【摘要】：作為一種新的投資方式,P2P網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸通過互聯(lián)網(wǎng)已逐漸為人所熟知。從2007年我國第一家P2P網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸平臺“拍拍貸”成立到2015年,我國P2P網(wǎng)絡(luò)信貸之前一直處于法律的“灰色”地帶,直到最近《關(guān)于促進互聯(lián)網(wǎng)金融健康發(fā)展的指導(dǎo)意見》出臺,才明確了P2P網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸平臺要堅持信息中介地位的宗旨,將該行業(yè)的監(jiān)管權(quán)限分配給銀監(jiān)會。然而,這項自我矛盾的安排引起了業(yè)界對網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸平臺定性的爭議。債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式是我國P2P借貸行業(yè)對傳統(tǒng)業(yè)務(wù)模式的中國化創(chuàng)新,此業(yè)務(wù)的運營也取得了較好的成效,但同時該模式運作過程因涉及信貸資產(chǎn)證券化和存在非法集資刑事犯罪的風(fēng)險而頗受爭議。本文從上述兩個爭議點出發(fā),探討債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式的合法性和法律風(fēng)險,提出債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式應(yīng)當(dāng)廢除的觀點。本文以債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式的合法性為切入點,除引言和結(jié)語部分外,分為五部分:第一部分是債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式的現(xiàn)實實踐。本部分主要介紹債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式的現(xiàn)實實踐,提出債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式中存在合法性和運營風(fēng)險兩方面的問題,從而引起了債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式的存廢爭議。第二部分是對債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式的合法性探討。本部分通過對債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式的實例——宜信平臺的唐寧模式的考察,提出對債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式合法性存在平臺定性和交易產(chǎn)品性質(zhì)兩方面的疑問,并結(jié)合實例分析債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式中四方當(dāng)事人間的具體法律關(guān)系和法律性質(zhì),揭示債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式的問題在于,網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸平臺對放貸人債權(quán)的“整理——錯配”過程是在進行資產(chǎn)證券化,以及轉(zhuǎn)讓的“債權(quán)”本質(zhì)屬于證券。第三部分是債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式下存在的風(fēng)險承擔(dān)。本部分介紹在債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式下投資者需要防范龐氏騙局,網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺必須對非法集資重點防范。第四部分是對P2P借貸平臺債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式的域外考察。本部分通過對美國的債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式——Lending Club的證券模式的業(yè)務(wù)運營方法和風(fēng)險監(jiān)管的考察,分析中美債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式的差異,提出對我國監(jiān)管有益的建議。第五部分是債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式走向的建議,即結(jié)論部分。本部分在前文論述的基礎(chǔ)上,總結(jié)債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式的運作中存在無資格主體資產(chǎn)證券化以及轉(zhuǎn)讓的“債權(quán)”性質(zhì)違法,同時對平臺信息中介定性加以肯定,得出債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓模式應(yīng)當(dāng)廢除的結(jié)論。
[Abstract]:As a new way of investment, P2P network lending through the Internet has gradually become known. From the establishment of PPDAI, the first P2P network lending platform in China, in 2007 to 2015, P2P network credit in China has been in the "grey" zone of the law until the recent introduction of the guidance on promoting the healthy Development of Internet Finance. It is clear that P2P network lending platform should adhere to the purpose of information intermediary status and assign the regulatory authority of the industry to the CBRC. However, this self-contradictory arrangement has aroused controversy over the characterization of online lending platforms in the industry. The transfer mode of creditor's rights is the innovation of traditional business model in P2P lending industry in China, and the operation of this business has also achieved good results. At the same time, however, the operation process of the model is controversial because of the risk of credit asset securitization and the existence of criminal crimes of illegal fund raising. Based on the above two controversial points, this paper discusses the legitimacy and legal risk of the transfer mode of creditor's rights, and puts forward the viewpoint that the mode of transfer of creditor's rights should be abolished. This paper takes the legitimacy of the mode of transfer of creditor's rights as the starting point, in addition to the introduction and conclusion, it is divided into five parts: the first part is the practical practice of the mode of transfer of creditor's rights. This part mainly introduces the practical practice of the transfer mode of creditor's rights, and puts forward that there are two problems in the mode of transfer of creditor's rights: legitimacy and operational risk, which leads to the dispute over the retention or abolition of the mode of transfer of creditor's rights. The second part is to discuss the legitimacy of the transfer mode of creditor's rights. Based on the investigation of Tang Ning model of Yixin platform, which is an example of creditor's rights transfer mode, this part puts forward two questions about the legitimacy of creditor's rights transfer model: the qualitative nature of the platform and the nature of the trading products. Combined with examples, this paper analyzes the specific legal relationship and legal nature between the four parties in the mode of transfer of creditor's rights, and reveals that the problem of the mode of transfer of creditor's rights lies in, The process of "collation and misallocation" of lender's claims by online lending platform is securitization of assets, and the essence of "creditor's rights" transferred belongs to securities. The third part is the risk bearing under the mode of transfer of creditor's rights. This part introduces that investors need to guard against Ponzi scheme under the mode of creditor's rights transfer, and the network platform must focus on the prevention of illegal fund-raising. The fourth part is the overseas investigation of the creditor's rights transfer mode of P2P lending platform. Through the investigation of the business operation method and risk supervision of Lending Club's securities model, this part analyzes the differences between China and the United States in the mode of creditor's rights transfer, and puts forward some suggestions beneficial to the supervision of our country. The fifth part is the suggestion of the mode of transfer of creditor's rights, that is, the conclusion part. On the basis of the above discussion, this part summarizes the operation of the transfer mode of creditor's rights, which is illegal in the securitization of assets of unqualified subjects and the nature of the transfer of "creditor's rights", and at the same time confirms the qualitative nature of the platform information intermediary. It is concluded that the mode of transfer of creditor's rights should be abolished.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.3
[Abstract]:As a new way of investment, P2P network lending through the Internet has gradually become known. From the establishment of PPDAI, the first P2P network lending platform in China, in 2007 to 2015, P2P network credit in China has been in the "grey" zone of the law until the recent introduction of the guidance on promoting the healthy Development of Internet Finance. It is clear that P2P network lending platform should adhere to the purpose of information intermediary status and assign the regulatory authority of the industry to the CBRC. However, this self-contradictory arrangement has aroused controversy over the characterization of online lending platforms in the industry. The transfer mode of creditor's rights is the innovation of traditional business model in P2P lending industry in China, and the operation of this business has also achieved good results. At the same time, however, the operation process of the model is controversial because of the risk of credit asset securitization and the existence of criminal crimes of illegal fund raising. Based on the above two controversial points, this paper discusses the legitimacy and legal risk of the transfer mode of creditor's rights, and puts forward the viewpoint that the mode of transfer of creditor's rights should be abolished. This paper takes the legitimacy of the mode of transfer of creditor's rights as the starting point, in addition to the introduction and conclusion, it is divided into five parts: the first part is the practical practice of the mode of transfer of creditor's rights. This part mainly introduces the practical practice of the transfer mode of creditor's rights, and puts forward that there are two problems in the mode of transfer of creditor's rights: legitimacy and operational risk, which leads to the dispute over the retention or abolition of the mode of transfer of creditor's rights. The second part is to discuss the legitimacy of the transfer mode of creditor's rights. Based on the investigation of Tang Ning model of Yixin platform, which is an example of creditor's rights transfer mode, this part puts forward two questions about the legitimacy of creditor's rights transfer model: the qualitative nature of the platform and the nature of the trading products. Combined with examples, this paper analyzes the specific legal relationship and legal nature between the four parties in the mode of transfer of creditor's rights, and reveals that the problem of the mode of transfer of creditor's rights lies in, The process of "collation and misallocation" of lender's claims by online lending platform is securitization of assets, and the essence of "creditor's rights" transferred belongs to securities. The third part is the risk bearing under the mode of transfer of creditor's rights. This part introduces that investors need to guard against Ponzi scheme under the mode of creditor's rights transfer, and the network platform must focus on the prevention of illegal fund-raising. The fourth part is the overseas investigation of the creditor's rights transfer mode of P2P lending platform. Through the investigation of the business operation method and risk supervision of Lending Club's securities model, this part analyzes the differences between China and the United States in the mode of creditor's rights transfer, and puts forward some suggestions beneficial to the supervision of our country. The fifth part is the suggestion of the mode of transfer of creditor's rights, that is, the conclusion part. On the basis of the above discussion, this part summarizes the operation of the transfer mode of creditor's rights, which is illegal in the securitization of assets of unqualified subjects and the nature of the transfer of "creditor's rights", and at the same time confirms the qualitative nature of the platform information intermediary. It is concluded that the mode of transfer of creditor's rights should be abolished.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.3
【相似文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 李錚;;應(yīng)注意防范債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓過程中的風(fēng)險[J];產(chǎn)權(quán)導(dǎo)刊;2012年09期
2 楊永強;王經(jīng)偉;;農(nóng)發(fā)行不良貸款債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的法律風(fēng)險[J];農(nóng)業(yè)發(fā)展與金融;2014年02期
3 祁立民;;債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓 應(yīng)先抵他人到期債務(wù)[J];現(xiàn)代營銷;2001年12期
4 尹長海;債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓之我見[J];湘潭師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2002年02期
5 施漢嶸;析債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓若干法律問題[J];法律適用;2003年07期
6 劉常云;政策性貸款債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓不具法律效力[J];中國合作經(jīng)濟;2004年12期
7 陽朝鋒;債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓通知性質(zhì)辨——與施漢嶸先生“析債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓若干法律問題”商榷[J];內(nèi)蒙古農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2004年04期
8 丘志喬;略論債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓[J];廣東經(jīng)濟管理學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年02期
9 牛犁耘;;金融債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的法律性質(zhì)探析[J];金融理論與實踐;2005年12期
10 羅華;試論債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓限制性規(guī)定[J];四川教育學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年01期
相關(guān)會議論文 前2條
1 張川華;;禁止債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓特約效力研究——以《國際商事合同通則(2004)》第9.1.9條為視角[A];2008全國博士生學(xué)術(shù)論壇（國際法）論文集——國際經(jīng)濟法、國際環(huán)境法分冊[C];2008年
2 陳姝，
本文編號：2494165
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2494165.html
最近更新
教材專著
