Recently, financial regulatory authorities in Shandong, Xiamen, Hainan, Shanghai, and other places have continued to issue warnings to consumers about the dangers of illegal loan intermediaries.

So, in reality, how significant are the dangers of illegal loan intermediaries? If consumers conspire with them to commit fraud, how severe can the legal consequences be?

China Judgments Online recently posted a typical case: Lei Moujie colluded with loan intermediaries to fabricate information, applying for a universal loan of 1.8 million at the Nanjing branch of the Bank of Shanghai. However, the related loan was ultimately taken by the intermediaries. Both the first instance and the second instance of the court ruled that the applicant must repay the loan.

From the final court ruling, Lei Moujie ultimately faced the dilemma of losing both property and money. In response, a lawyer from a law firm in Hunan candidly told the financial association that cases where loan applicants cooperate with loan intermediaries to fabricate information are not uncommon.

The lawyer also believes that the core of this case lies in Lei Moujie himself violating the integrity principle of bank loans, showing clear fault, and having weak risk awareness. At present, loan applicants should watch for the police's handling of loan intermediaries' cases to actively protect their own rights. However, consumers should apply for loans through legitimate channels and not easily trust the enticement of loan intermediaries.

A post-80s woman fails to repay a universal loan and instead accuses the bank of illegally lending money.

According to relevant documents, Lei Moujie, female, born in 1982, resides in Nanjing. On October 25, 2022, the Nanjing branch of the Bank of Shanghai signed an "Universal and Small Business Maximum Property Mortgage Credit Contract" with Lei Moujie, agreeing on a credit limit of 2,730,000 yuan and a credit term from October 25, 2022, to October 20, 2032. The contract also stipulates that Lei mortgaged a property he owns to the bank for the maximum amount.

On October 25, 2022, the branch signed a "Personal Operation Loan Contract" with Lei Mojie, stipulating that this contract is a specific business contract under the above-mentioned "Maximum Amount Property Mortgage Credit Contract"; the credit line is 1,800,000 yuan. After the contract was signed, the branch and Lei Mojie handled the real estate mortgage registration at X Mingyue Garden, Shangcheng, Jiangning District, Nanjing. On November 1, 2022, Bank of Shanghai Nanjing Branch disbursed a loan of 1,800,000 yuan according to the agreement. However, Lei Mojie failed to repay as agreed, and as of November 27, 2023, still owes Bank of Shanghai Nanjing Branch a principal of 1,774,720.48 yuan and various interests. Subsequently, both parties ended up in court.

During the court trial, Lei Mojie claimed that although he signed the "Maximum Amount Property Mortgage Credit Contract for Inclusive Finance and Small Enterprises" with Bank of Shanghai Nanjing Branch, he did not submit a written withdrawal application and did not apply for withdrawals from Bank of Shanghai Nanjing Branch in written form. Bank of Shanghai Nanjing Branch made illegal loans.

Police records show that the borrower cooperated with the loan intermediary to fabricate information during the loan application.

To prove his claim, Lei Mojie also brought witness Xu. Xu's statement in the second instance court hearing stated that he had previously met the client manager Lu of Bank of Shanghai Nanjing Branch through the loan intermediary Liu, and in July 2022, he also applied for a similar operational mortgage loan as in this case. He also signed a written loan contract and similarly entrusted the payment to Liu's account. After the loan was disbursed, Liu never handed over the loan to him.

Lei Mojie stated that the case involved Bank of Shanghai Nanjing Branch, employees of Bank of Shanghai Nanjing Branch, and Liu and others deceiving and defrauding him, as the bank did not actually lend money to Lei Mojie. The obligation to disburse the loan under the contract was not fulfilled, so Lei Mojie should not bear the repayment responsibility. Xu's testimony can prove that similar embezzlement and fraud cases have occurred in Bank of Shanghai Nanjing Branch's previous loans, where the bank colluded with Liu to maliciously harm Lei Mojie's interests. The contract in question is invalid.

However, evidence uncovered by relevant departments shows that Lei Mojie is not entirely innocent.

On February 21, 2024, in the inquiry record made by the Third Responsibility Zone Investigation Team of Gulou Public Security Sub-Bureau in Nanjing, Lei Mojie stated: "Liu said I was applying for a business loan, said he would help me arrange a fake purchase and sale contract, and that the contract needed to have a receiving bank account, but it must be a third-party account. Liu also asked me if I had a company seal... and let Liu take the company seal away."

The above record also shows that the property involved in the case had a mortgage loan in Ping An Bank, with 0.48 million yuan principal remaining. Later, through Liu's contacts, the property was released by borrowing from others. During the loan application process, Lei Mojie handed over his phone to Liu for operation and forwarded bank verification codes to the other party. "(Later) Liu said the 1.8 million loan has been transferred to a third-party account." "Out of the 1.8 million loan, Liu returned 0.48 million to Liu, transferred 0.1 million to me, and still has 1.22 million yet to give me."

That is to say, from the above police interrogation transcript, Lei Moye cooperated with loan intermediary Liu Mouliang to falsify and apply for inclusive loans, with the specific process manipulated by Liu Mouliang.

The court ruled that the financial loan contract is valid and ordered the lender to repay nearly 1.8 million.

At the end of October this year, the Intermediate People's Court of Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, announced the result of the second instance.

The second instance court pointed out that the financial loan contract involved in this case is a personal business loan, aimed at providing more precise financing services for the actual transaction needs and ultimately serving the real economy. It can be known from Lei Moye's statements in the first and second instances, as well as the statements of the public security agencies, that he was aware of the credit application, contract signing, and loan withdrawal matters related to the loan business, and had corresponding expectations for the use of funds after the loan was transferred to Qian Mou's account by another person. Therefore, the financial loan contract involved in the case represents the true intentions of both parties, and the funds involved have been disbursed to the account specified in the loan approval materials provided by Lei Moye or his authorized intermediary. There is no violation of mandatory legal provisions in the conclusion and performance of the above contract, and there is no evidence to prove that Bank of Shanghai Nanjing Branch colluded with others to infringe Lei Moye's interests by entering into financial loan contracts. Therefore, it cannot be determined that there are grounds for invalidity or revocability of the contracts involved in the case.

Furthermore, the second instance court also pointed out that from the process of the conclusion of the contracts involved and the statements of the parties involved, Lei Moye entrusted his WeChat, verification codes, etc., to be used and operated by Liu Mouliang in the loan application and withdrawal processes. Combined with Lei Moye's statements to the public security agencies, it can also be seen that he allowed Liu Mouliang to use the official seal of Baixin Supermarket in Jiangning District and to produce the corresponding loan application materials. In addition, from the content of the arrest warrant already submitted by the public security agencies, only Liu Mouliang and Zhang Mouzhu are personal suspects. Whether Lei Moye is a victim of a criminal case or the victim of a criminal case in the future does not affect the determination of civil liability in this case.

The second instance court upheld the judgment of the first instance, that is, Lei Moye should pay the principal, interest, penalty interest, compound interest, and so on to Bank of Shanghai Nanjing Branch. The bank has the right to enjoy priority repayment rights by discounting Lei Moye's real estate or by auctioning or selling the proceeds.