|
| 文章编号：1672-3104(2017)01-0034-07 |
| |
|
个体网络借贷规制进路分析 |
| |
刘骏 |
| |
|
（重庆大学法学院，重庆，400044） |
| |
| 摘 要： 《网络借贷信息中介机构业务活动管理暂行办法》要求个体网络借贷平台严守信息中介之定位，即否定了自身担保型平台、资产证券化的债权转让型平台的合法性，以此构成与学者们主张的学理进路之最大分歧。然而，严守信息中介的定性与司法案例中所呈现的风险是不相称的，足以证明这种规制进路的不合理，本质上就是金融监管抑制金融创新。学者们所主张的学理进路则多将网络借贷不同模式的异质风险同质化处理，偏离了司法案例中的风险实际，缺乏可操作性。鉴于此，基于风险的差异化规制应该是个体网络借贷规制的最佳完善进路。 |
| |
| 关键词： 网络借贷；《网络借贷暂行办法》；平台业务模式；司法案例；差异化规制 |
| |
|
| |
Analysis of regulatory approach of online P2P lending |
| |
LIU Jun |
| |
（Law School, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China） |
| |
| Abstract: The Temporary Management Methods of Online Lending Information Intermediaries’ Business Activities requires lending platform to be an information intermediaries, namely negates the legitimacy of self-secured platform and asset securitization credit assignment platform, and it is the maximum difference with the theoretical approach advocated by scholars. However, the requirement is not in line with the risk presented by judicial case, which is enough to prove that this regulatory approach is unreasonable. In nature, it means that financial regulation suppresses financial innovation. The regulatory approach advocated by scholars heavily dealt with the heterogeneous risk of different online lnding modes in homogenization process, which is deviated from the actual risk of justice case, and lacks operability. In view of this, regulation based on the difference risk should be the best approach to improve the regulation of Online P2P Lending. |
| |
Key words: online lending; The Temporary Management Methods of Online Lending; platform’s business models; judicial case; differentiation regulation |
| |
|
