在线一本码道高清

Can a student with a loan distrust on campus be exempt? Supreme law: no case is no longer enforced

Original title: Students on campus loans can be waived? Supreme law: no case is no longer enforced

Recently, the Supreme Law issued the "Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Further Strengthening the Concept of Good Faithful Civilization in the Implementation Work". The "Opinions" clearly states that if full-time students become enforced due to campus loan disputes, they are generally not allowed to take measures to be included in the dishonesty list and restrict consumption. In this regard, some netizens questioned: "Why can't the executed person be included in the dishonesty list on campus? Is this a waiver of the campus loan repayment obligation?" "Does the" exempt "campus loan dishonest student indulge the student's borrowing behavior? "In this regard, the reporter interviewed the relevant person in charge of the Supreme Law.

Why are there special rules for campus loans?

The relevant person in charge of the Supreme Law stated that for some time, in response to the needs of school students in terms of credit funds and financial services, such as financial aid, online loan platforms, etc. Loan "business. Among these businesses, some are customized and standardized loan programs for school students, with formal channels, reasonable loan quotas and interest settings, and loan qualification review specifications. The use of loans is controlled according to the contract and there are supporting risk management measures; some It is for one-sided pursuit of developing the credit market, one-sided encouragement for school students to apply for credit, and it is very lax in terms of loan qualification review, post-lending management, and capital flow control, which objectively forms a large repayment risk and hidden dangers of conflicts; even more use Weaknesses of relatively lacking social experience and inadequate judgment in school students, using false publicity methods such as "zero interest", "super convenience", and "zero risk" to trick students into borrowing and trap them in traps such as "routine loans" , Triggering incidents that endanger the safety and healthy growth of school students.

The Party Central Committee and the State Council attach great importance to the complex situation and problems exposed on campus loans. Relevant departments have stepped up their cooperation and coordination, making great efforts to regulate the campus loan business and rectify the campus loan disorder. When handling disputes caused by campus loans, the people's courts should also fully recognize the various complex situations that may exist, and handle them in a strict and prudent manner in accordance with the law. Both legitimate loan contracts must be respected and enforced, and campuses must be discovered and corrected in a timely manner. The problems existing in the loan shall protect the lawful rights and interests of the students in accordance with the law. Specific to the implementation process, in view of the complex causes of campus loan disputes, and considering the general lack of social experience of school students, they will also face further studies and job hunting. If they are included in the dishonesty list without discrimination, and consumption restrictions are adopted, they may Job search and other impacts are not conducive to future growth and development. After careful study, we believe that at this stage, it is generally more prudent and appropriate for full-time school students who become enforced due to campus loan disputes to not include in the dishonesty list or restrict consumption.

Will this rule for college student groups condone "old Lai"?

The relevant person in charge of the Supreme Law stated that for the obligations established by the effective legal instruments, the enforced should perform them in accordance with the law. This is the proper meaning of maintaining the dignity of the law and the inevitable requirement of maintaining social integrity. The two effective systems that have been included in the list of untrustworthy, restricting high consumption and related non-life or business-related consumption (hereinafter referred to as "restricted consumption") to urge the parties to fulfill their debts have achieved good results since implementation. In order to continue to vigorously deter the executed person from evading execution, evading execution, and timely protecting the lawful rights and interests of the successful parties, we will spare no effort to adhere to these two systems.

At the same time, we are aware that on the one hand, the impact of these two systems on the enforced is increasing. On the other hand, during the implementation of these two systems, some working mechanisms are also becoming more and more perfect, especially in terms of finer and more precise management. They are also being further standardized and improved. Therefore, they must be implemented in strict accordance with the law. , And should strengthen the concept of good faith implementation, and gradually explore the specific rules applicable to the classification of the two systems to make them more consistent with the principle of proportionality and the rule of law.

It should be noted that the inclusion of untrustworthy lists and the restriction of consumption are two different systems. The inclusion of untrustworthy lists is a more severe disciplinary measure than the restriction of consumption, because after the inclusion of untrustworthiness, not only should consumption be restricted, but also records in the credit information system, There are various disciplinary measures such as holding specific positions and restricting government procurement, bidding items, market access, and qualification recognition. Therefore, it is necessary to grasp the level of importance when applying the two systems.

For students on campus loan enforcement cases, first of all, they are generally not included in the dishonesty list, but they can take measures to limit consumption according to the situation; and if there is indeed no negative performance, circumvention or resistance to enforcement, according to the judicial interpretation of restrictions on consumption It is also possible not to take measures to restrict consumption. In particular, "not generally adopted" does not mean absolute non-adoption, non-payment of malicious borrowing of loans using campus loans, or other serious breach of credit, apparently exceeding the scope of normal campus loans for students. The executor is resolutely included in the list of untrustworthy or restrictive consumption measures according to law. For example, if there is evidence that the students in the school cannot repay the obligations established by the effective legal instruments and there are high consumption behaviors, they should take measures to be included in the dishonesty list or restrict consumption. At the same time, failing to take measures to be included in the dishonesty list or to limit consumption is by no means equivalent to the case no longer being executed. Including into the dishonesty list and restricting consumption is only a type of disciplinary measure among the enforcement measures of the people's court. In addition, in accordance with laws and regulations such as the Civil Procedure Law, the people's court can also take orders to report property, search, seal, seize, sell Various enforcement measures such as property. Therefore, for cases that should be executed in accordance with the law, the people's court will never stop, but will continue to make full use of various coercive measures in accordance with the law to promote implementation. Back to Sohu, see more

Editor:

Disclaimer: The opinions of this article only represent the author. Sohu is an information publishing platform. Sohu only provides information storage space services.
Get it for free
Sohu Hot Today
    秒后 After 6 seconds
    Recommended today
      Enter Sohu Home
      Feedback