来源：浙江法治报 帮朋友"贷款"再转借 还可以从中收点利息 看似"帮忙"又"互利" 小心赔钱又违法 案情简介 2023年9月，佟某因资金困难向好友钱某求助，请求钱某帮忙向银行申请贷款，再将贷款转给自己，并 承诺出具借条，支付给钱某一些利息。钱某同意后，以个人名义与银行签订贷款合同，贷款金额16万 元。银行放款后，钱某将16万元全数转至佟某账户。随后，佟某向钱某出具借条，载明其以钱某的名义 向银行贷款，约定每月还款金额及利息、逾期还款责任等内容。 起初，佟某按约向钱某转账用于偿还银行贷款。可没过几个月，佟某的还款态度逐渐消极，从按时转账 变成需要钱某多次催促才勉强还款。最后，佟某拒绝还款。为避免个人征信受损，钱某只得自行垫付资 金偿还银行每月贷款，后因还款压力增大，遂通过其他小贷平台"拆东墙补西墙"以维持还款。钱某多次 催要无果，于是将佟某诉至法院，要求其偿还剩余本金、银行利息以及约定利息。 法院审理 根据相关法律规定，套取金融机构贷款转贷的，民间借贷合同无效，故案涉借条应认定为无效。佟某基 于无效合同取得的案涉款项应退还钱某。钱某向银行实际应偿还的贷款本息总额系其因转贷行为实际负 担的债务，扣除佟某已还款项后 ...

Core Viewpoint - The practice of "cashing out" loans through platforms like Alipay and WeChat, and then lending that money to others, is illegal and can lead to the invalidation of loan contracts and potential criminal charges [1][4][5]. Group 1: Legal Implications - The Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court reported that from 2022 to September 2025, it handled 172 cases related to the illegal practice of cashing out loans, with over 70% being recognized as loan extraction and re-lending [1][3]. - Contracts formed under the practice of cashing out loans are deemed invalid, and in cases of disputes, only the principal amount may be returned without interest [5][6]. Group 2: Risk Factors - Borrowers often face financial difficulties and seek help from lenders, who may overlook legal risks due to personal trust, leading to disputes when repayments are not made [3][5]. - Lenders may engage in complex schemes involving multiple credit cards to create "time gaps" for cashing out, which complicates financial tracking and can negatively impact credit scores [4][5]. Group 3: Regulatory Recommendations - The court emphasizes the need for individuals to resist engaging in illegal lending practices and to adhere strictly to credit card usage regulations [6]. - Financial institutions and regulatory bodies are encouraged to develop comprehensive risk prevention mechanisms and improve loan management capabilities to ensure the legality of loan purposes [6].

Group 1 - The court ruled that borrowing funds from financial institutions to lend at a profit is invalid, as it involves using credit funds for unauthorized lending [2] - In a case where a borrower failed to repay a loan sourced from a financial institution, the court mandated the borrower to return the principal amount, emphasizing that the loan agreement was invalid [2] - The court clarified that if a civil legal act is invalid, any property obtained through that act must be returned, and interest claims by the creditor are not supported by law [2] Group 2 - The court dismissed a lawsuit regarding gambling debts, stating that such debts are illegal and not protected by law [3] - Evidence such as witness testimonies and chat records were used to determine that the debt was related to gambling, leading to the rejection of the claim [3] - The court highlighted the issue of individuals attempting to legitimize illegal debts through forged documents and emphasized strict scrutiny during legal proceedings [3]