|
| 文章编号：1672-3104(2015)06-0027-07 |
| |
|
论P2P网络借贷平台业务发展的合法模式选择——从《关于促进互联网金融健康发展的指导意见》谈起 |
| |
刘志伟 |
| |
|
（西南政法大学经济法学院，重庆，401120） |
| |
| 摘 要： 2015年7月中国人民银行等十部门联合印发《关于促进互联网金融健康发展的指导意见》，肯定了P2P网络借贷的合法地位，并正本清源地将其P2P网络借贷平台定性为“信息中介”。然而，需要进一步辨明的是其他运营模式的P2P网络借贷平台是否一定不具合法地位。将部分P2P网络借贷平台性质认定为“信息中介”不可置否，但对于不改变债权性质的直接债权转让，P2P网络借贷平台除可扮演“居间人”外，还可扮演“行纪人”和“代理人”的角色。同时，对于改变债权本质属性的债权证券化金融产品的转让，P2P网络借贷平台则只能扮演“居间人”的法律角色。 |
| |
| 关键词： P2P网络借贷平台；信息平台；信用平台；债权转让；资产证券化 |
| |
|
| |
The choices of legal business development model on P2P network lending platform: Talking from the “Guiding Opinions of Promoting the Healthy Development of Internet banking” |
| |
LIU Zhiwei |
| |
（Economic Law School, Southwest University of Political Science and Law, Chongqing 401120, China） |
| |
| Abstract: In July 2015, People's Bank of China and other 10 departments jointly issued the Guiding Opinions of Promoting the Healthy Development of Internet Banking,” which affirms the legal status of P2P network lending, and gets to the root of its P2P network lending platform characterized as “information intermediaries.” However, what needs further identifying is whether other operating models on P2P network lending platform do not have legal status. It cannot be denied that part of the P2P network lending platform can be recognized as the “information intermediaries,” but as for direct credit transfer which does not change the nature of the creditor, P2P network lending platform can also function as a “broker” and “agent” besides that of a “mediator.” Meanwhile, as for the transfer of the property to change the nature of the creditor which claims securitized financial products, P2P network lending platform can only play the legal role of a “mediator.” |
| |
Key words: P2P network lending platform; information platform; credit platform; credit transfer; asset securitization |
| |
|
