An Empirical Study On Judicial Identification Of "Predatory Lending" Crime

With the continuous development of China’s socialist market economy,the demand for funds has increased.In order to meet the diversified demand for funds,various financing means including private lending immediately gushed out.It is under this background that some private lending businesses gradually became alienated,and thus evolved into "Predatory Lending".In the process of implementation,"Predatory Lending" violates related crimes,forming a crime of "Predatory Lending",which often aims at illegal possession,and often designs various "routines" to construct the appearance of false high-value private lending,and then continuously increases the loan amount,and then arbitrarily determines the breach of contract,thus illegally occupying the victim’s property.The crime of "Predatory Lending" not only infringes on citizens’ property rights,but also uses soft violence,violence and other means or false litigation in the process of claiming debts,thus damaging citizens’ personal rights,disrupting the financial management order,seriously impairing judicial justice and damaging China’s judicial authority.Its social harm is extremely serious。The criminal behavior of "Predatory Lending" has the illusion of civil appearance,and criminals often use this false civil appearance and various means to evade legal sanctions,which is quite concealed and complicated.Although the state and local governments have successively issued relevant judicial interpretations and normative documents,there are still many problems in the application of criminal law in judicial practice。Through the empirical observation of cases in various places,we can know the current situation of judicial determination in China,and find some difficulties.When the court determines the criminal behavior of "routine loan",there will be the nature that the criminal and the people intersect and it is difficult to distinguish between the criminal and the people.Because of its indistinguishable situation,it will make it more difficult for judicial organs to deal with similar cases,and even as long as it meets the characteristics of "routine loan",it will be regarded as a crime.Judicial organs have some wrong understandings when choosing charges.As for the identification of accomplice,it seems impossible to deal with the special personnel involved in some "routine loans",such as flat accounts and lawyers.At the same time,because the criminal acts of "routine loans" are mostly in the form of gangs,and violence occurs in the process of claiming debts,which is easy to be intertwined with evil forces.It is difficult to grasp whether it is involved in black and evil in judicial practice.Therefore,it is very important to solve the above problems in a targeted way,and the judicial organs should establish new thinking to further accurately distinguish the criminal and civilian nature of "Predatory Lending";In judicial adjudication,we should accurately choose the charges,distinguish the status of each accomplice in the crime,and make the culpability and punishment adapt to each other,and punish them for their crimes.At the same time,whether it is a crime of black and evil forces should be determined from the characteristics of black and evil forces,and all "routine loan" crimes should not be considered as crimes of black and evil forces,nor should criminal groups of black and evil forces be spared from endangering society,so as to be justified.