1 1

Judicial interpretation of routine loan refers to the Opinions on Handling Criminal Cases of Routine Loan (Fa Fa Fa [20 19]No. 1 1, hereinafter referred to as "Opinions") jointly formulated and issued by the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security and Ministry of Justice, which came into effect on April 9, 2010.

Legal basis:

Opinions of the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Supreme People's Court of the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of Justice on Several Issues Concerning Handling Criminal Cases of "Routine Loan"

1. "Routine loan" refers to inducing or forcing the victim to sign relevant agreements such as "loan" or "loan", "mortgage" and "guarantee" in disguise for the purpose of illegal possession, and forming false creditor's rights and debts by falsely increasing the loan amount, maliciously creating a breach of contract, arbitrarily identifying the breach of contract, destroying repayment evidence, etc. And resort to litigation, arbitration, notarization or adoption.

2. There is an essential difference between "conventional lending" and non-governmental lending based on autonomy of will between equal subjects. Lenders of private loans recover the principal and obtain interest according to the contents of the agreement at maturity, and do not aim at illegally occupying other people's property, and will not commit acts such as inflating the loan amount, creating false payment traces, maliciously creating a breach of contract, arbitrarily identifying a breach of contract, and destroying repayment evidence. In the process of signing and fulfilling the loan agreement.

In judicial practice, we should pay attention to the difference between cases caused by illegal debt collection and "routine loan" cases. Criminal suspects and defendants have no purpose of illegal possession, nor have they used "routine" to form a false creditor-debtor relationship with borrowers, so they should not be considered as "routine loans". If the use of violence, threats or other means to extort debts constitutes a crime, it shall be convicted and punished according to the facts of the specific case.