In today's society, with the rapid development and popularization of Internet finance, online debt has become the main form of debt that most debtors have to bear. However, it should not be ignored that these online debts also cover many invalid debts of nature, which brings a lot of distress and risks to the debtor.
Online debt refers to debt arising from borrowing and lending activities through internet platforms or mobile applications. Due to its convenience and efficiency, online debt has exploded in recent years. However, due to the lack of adequate regulation and regulation of online debt, many invalid debts have also quietly grown.
Void debts usually refer to those debts that have lost their legal validity due to a violation of legal provisions or contractual agreements. Among online debts, invalid debts are mainly manifested in the following forms:
First of all, some online lending platforms have fraudulent behaviors, attracting borrowers through false publicity, high interest rates and other means, and then forming invalid debts. These platforms often do not have legal business qualifications, and are even involved in illegal and criminal activities such as illegal fundraising, resulting in debtors taking on heavy debts without knowing the truth.
Second, some online debts have contractual irregularities. Due to the particularity of online lending, many borrowers do not fully understand the terms of the contract when signing the contract, resulting in illegal and unfair terms in the contract. These invalid contracts make it impossible to protect the rights and interests of the debtor and increase the risk of debt disputes.
In addition, there are some online debts related to the leakage of personal information and illegal transactions. Some criminals obtain the personal information of debtors through illegal means, and then carry out illegal transactions or extortion. This not only violates the privacy rights of the debtors, but also puts them in an invalid debt dispute.
Debtors often feel helpless in the face of invalid debts of this nature. Not only do they have to bear high interest and fees, but they also face endless debt collection harassment and legal risks. Therefore, strengthening the supervision and regulation of online debts and reducing the generation of invalid debts have become an urgent problem to be solved.
The government and relevant institutions should strengthen the supervision of online lending platforms, crack down on fraud and illegal fundraising activities, and ensure the healthy and orderly development of the online lending market. At the same time, the review and management of online debt contracts should also be strengthened to protect the legitimate rights and interests of debtors. In addition, strengthening the protection of personal information and data security management is also an important means to prevent the creation of invalid debts.
For debtors, they should be more risk-aware, carefully choose lending platforms and products, and fully understand the terms and risks of the contract. When faced with invalid debts, they should actively seek legal help and rights protection channels to protect their legitimate rights and interests.
To sum up, the online debts to be borne by most debtors at present cover many types of invalid debts. These invalid debts have brought many troubles and risks to debtors, and it is necessary for the government, relevant institutions and debtors to work together to strengthen supervision and regulation, reduce the occurrence of invalid debts, and maintain market order and the legitimate rights and interests of debtors.
Case: Xiao Li in Henan, in the process of pursuing rapid capital turnover, chose an online loan platform in Shanghai to borrow. However, he did not expect that these 42 borrowing experiences not only failed to solve his urgent needs, but pushed him into a deeper debt vortex.
Each time, Xiao Li borrowed 3,000 yuan from the online loan platform, but the actual amount received was only 2,650 yuan. This means that for each loan, the platform deducts 350 yuan in advance as a service fee and interest. What makes Xiao Li even more puzzling is that on the repayment date, he still needs to repay the principal amount of 3,000 yuan. This means that Xiao Li actually needs to bear additional costs of up to 700 yuan for each loan.
According to the annual interest rate calculation standard, the monthly interest rate of 3,000 yuan should be 89 yuan, which is calculated based on the comprehensive annualized interest rate of 36%. However, in the process of borrowing 42 times, Xiao Li bore a comprehensive interest rate of 3,738 yuan, which was far beyond the scope of the law.
What's even more shocking is that the online loan platform charged 89 yuan in interest when lending, but when Xiao Li repaid, it charged a considerable fee. This means that the interest rate that Xiao Li has to bear for each loan is double. In addition, Xiao Li was also forced to bear a "service fee" of about 522 yuan per loan. The collection of these "service fees" not only violates relevant laws and regulations, but also seriously infringes on Xiao Li's legitimate rights and interests.
Faced with such a predicament, Xiao Li felt helpless. Not only did he have to endure high interest and fees, but he also faced endless debt collection harassment and legal risks. His experience is undoubtedly a microcosm of the current chaos in the online loan market.
In addition, the interest and service fees deducted from these 42 loans are about 28,000 yuan, and if the 3,738 yuan calculated at an annual interest rate of 36% is removed, the remaining 24,262 yuan is 24,262 yuan, and this 24,262 yuan is legally an invalid debt with a loan interest rate of more than 36%.
The debt currently owed by Xiao Li is 3,000 yuan, and if the invalid debt can be requested to be returned according to the laws of the mainland, the overdue 3,000 yuan debt can be offset from the invalid debt of 23,262 yuan, then the remaining invalid debt is still 21,262 yuan, that is to say, after the debt owed by Xiao Li and the invalid debt that can be required to be returned by the online loan platform, Xiao Li does not owe money to the online loan platform, but the debt owed by the online loan platform to Xiao Li of 21,262 yuan.
According to the mainland interest rate standard, it has been six years since March 11, 2018, and the normal annual interest rate is 15.6% Calculating, this part of the invalid debts that can be claimed to be returned has accumulated to 32,296.96 yuan, but up to now, Xiao Li is not only unable to request the return of invalid debts due to the loss of contact with the online loan platform, but is suffering from the malicious collection and infringement of unidentified persons entrusted by the online loan platform every day, and even uses illegal means to maliciously infringe on Xiao Li's relatives and friends.
In addition, there are indeed many people like Xiao Li who have encountered this. They choose online loans for their needs or emergencies, but they never expect to fall into the dilemma of high interest rates, invalid debts and malicious collections. These online lending platforms often use complex contract clauses and blurred legal boundaries to make it difficult for borrowers to defend their rights. In the face of such a dilemma, we have been thinking about how to more effectively ask these online lending platforms for "invalid debts".
Against this backdrop, we envisage the establishment of a coalition similar to the "National Creditors Alliance" to "demand the return of invalid debts from online lending platforms". The alliance will be an organization that gathers a large number of creditors to jointly launch rights protection actions against online lending platforms. It exists to provide a powerful platform for us, the creditors, to better defend our rights and interests.
First of all, the formation of such a coalition will allow us to gather the strength of many "people who demand the return of invalid debts from online lending platforms." Through the alliance, we can share information, exchange experiences, and jointly identify violations of online lending platforms. This will help us to have a clearer understanding of the operation mode of online lending platforms, so that we can launch more targeted rights protection actions.
Secondly, the alliance can provide us with professional legal assistance. Similar to a law firm in Beijing, we can invite professional lawyers and legal counsel to join the alliance to provide legal advice and legal assistance to these victims. They can help us analyze the terms of the contract, assess the validity of the debt, and guide us on how to legally claim the invalid debt from the online lending platform.
The current financial market is chaotic and disorderly, and many online lending platforms have problems such as incomplete qualifications and non-standard operations, which brings great challenges to the protection of the rights and interests of creditors. In this case, we do need to be cautious about the idea of forming an organization or coalition to demand the return of "invalid debts" from online lending platforms.
On the one hand, due to the complexity of the financial market and the lag of supervision, some unqualified online lending platforms are often able to take advantage of the loopholes of the law and evade their due responsibilities. If we take collective action at this time, it may anger these platforms, causing them to take more egregious measures to respond to our rights claims, and may even lead to legal battles and social conflicts.
On the other hand, even if we succeed in forming an organization or alliance, it may be difficult for us to achieve significant results in the face of a large online lending market and complex debt relationships. Due to the dispersion of creditors and information asymmetry, it is difficult for us to form a unified action and voice, and it is difficult to form effective pressure on online lending platforms.
Therefore, in the current market environment, we really cannot simply form an organization or alliance to demand the return of "invalid debts" from online lending platforms. But that doesn't mean we should give up on our efforts to defend the interests of our creditors.
Instead, we should take more pragmatic and feasible measures to deal with the problem. For example, we can strengthen our own risk awareness and financial literacy to improve our ability to identify and prevent risks, we can actively seek legal assistance to protect our rights and interests through legal channels, and we can also strengthen communication and collaboration with other creditors to jointly explore solutions to problems.
Xu Liang, a media person, said that in today's financial market, the relationship between debtors and online lending platforms is often complex and delicate. However, sometimes, the debtor may turn into a creditor and demand that the online lending platform return the invalid debt and pay the corresponding interest. This shift in identity, and the reasons behind it, deserves an in-depth discussion.
First of all, the reason why the debtor requests the online lending platform to return the invalid debt usually stems from the illegality or unreasonableness of the debt. In some cases, online lending platforms may use complex contract clauses, vague legal definitions, or other unfair means to make debtors unreasonably indebted. These debts may be far beyond the debtor's actual ability to repay, and there may even be obvious fraud. When the debtor realizes this, they have the right to demand the online lending platform to return these invalid debts in order to protect their legitimate rights and interests.
Secondly, the requirement to pay the corresponding interest is a further accountability for the misconduct of the online lending platform. In the process of the debtor taking on an invalid debt, they may have suffered huge financial losses and mental stress. These losses are not only from the direct principal of the debt, but also from additional costs such as interest, penalty interest, etc., incurred due to the debt. Therefore, when the debtor is transformed into a creditor, they have the right to demand the corresponding interest from the online lending platform to compensate for the losses suffered due to the invalid debt.
Behind this change in status is the imperfection of financial markets and the lack of legal supervision. Some online lending platforms take advantage of legal loopholes and regulatory gaps to wantonly infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of debtors, resulting in chaos in the financial market. However, when faced with such a situation, the debtor often lacks effective means of protecting its rights and legal protection. Therefore, when debtors are transformed into creditors, they are not only protecting their own rights and interests, but also promoting the standardization and rule of law of the financial market.