【#投入50万约定每年获益10万#？#50万投入0收益被判返还本金赔利息#】无锡市民老卫与天泓公司签 订了一份《投资合作协议》，约定投入50万元，每年年底获得10万元收益。然而，到了2024年年底，老 卫并未收到任何收益，于是将天泓公司诉至法院，认为双方"名为投资、实为借贷"，要求返还本金并支 付利息。无锡市梁溪区人民法院审理后认为，虽然双方签订的是投资协议，但协议不具有共同经营、共 享收益、共担风险的投资合作特征，而是约定老卫投资后享有固定收益。因此，双方之间的法律关系实 质是民间借贷，而非投资。法院判决，天泓公司应将50万元本金返还老卫，并按照贷款市场报价利率的 4倍支付逾期利息。@南京零距离 （来源：荔枝新闻） 转自：荔枝新闻 ...

许庄法庭经审理认为，该案事实清楚，证据充分，原、被告之间的借贷关系合法有效，被告李某未按约 定履行还款义务，已构成违约，应承担相应的还款责任，故依法判决被告李某在规定期限内向原告胡某 偿还借款本金2万元。 值得一提的是，判决书送达后被告李某并未选择上诉或消极应对，而是深刻认识到自身行为的过错及法 律文书的严肃性，在判决书送达第二天，李某主动联系承办法官及原告胡某，表示愿意立即履行还款义 务，在法院工作人员的见证下，李某当场转账2万元，该案债务得以全部清偿。 本案从诉讼到主动履行完毕，展现了当事人法律意识的提升和诚实守信的良好风尚，被告在判决后主动 履行，不仅及时弥补了原告的损失，有效化解了双方矛盾，也避免了案件进行强制执行程序，节约了司 法资源，实现了法律效果与社会效果的统一。 近日，大荔法院许庄法庭审结一起民间借贷纠纷案件，被告李某在判决生效后主动联系原告胡某，当场 履行了全部债务，实现了"案结事了"的良好效果。 本案中原告胡某诉称，多年前被告李某因资金周转需要向其借款2万元，并承诺待水果售出后立即归 还，但借款到期后原告多次催要，被告李某均以各种理由推脱，原告胡某无奈提起诉讼。 编辑：侯宜均 责编：郑黎波 ...

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 ...

被告邢某某于本判决生效之日起三日内给付原告欠款65890元及利息（利息以65890元为基数按照年利率 3.1%从2025年5月13日起计算至被告实际履行之日）。 【案例索引】 一审：渭南市富平县人民法院（2025）陕0528民初XXXX号（2025年7月） 二审：渭南市中级人民法院（2025）陕0528民终XXXX号（2025年11月） 【基本案情】 事实和理由：一、原告要求被告归还多付16150元工程款的事实依据，2023年9月3日，A公司与B公司签 订《建设工程专业分包合同》，约定由B公司分包建设位于陕西省西安市长安区某项目(以下简称案涉项 目工程)，经核算，案涉项目工程款总额为367223元，此有案涉项目工程结算单为证。经过双方协商后 达成一致，案涉项目工程款总额记为36.6万元且由A公司向B公司支付工程款37万元，此有本案原告与 被告双方签署的算账单为证。A公司向被告邢某某（B公司法定代表人）支付18万元工程款，此有银行 转账记录为证。施工过程中原告通过微信转账、银行卡转账等方式，代替A公司向被告支付206150元工 程款，共计向被告支付386150元工程款，多支付16150元；二、原告要求被告归还原 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case of Luo, a former public official, highlights the distinction between legitimate civil actions and violations of integrity discipline, particularly in the context of private lending and potential bribery [1][9][10]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - Luo, a member of the Communist Party since June 1994, held various positions including Chairman of the City Investment Company and Director of the Planning Bureau. He was found to have violated integrity discipline by lending money to management and service objects, resulting in significant profits [3]. - Between 2016 and 2018, Luo lent a total of 345 million yuan, receiving 13 million yuan in interest, while also being implicated in accepting bribes totaling over 606 million yuan during his tenure [3]. Investigation Process - The investigation into Luo's alleged serious violations began on October 22, 2024, leading to his detention and subsequent extension of detention time [4]. - On April 10, 2025, the case was transferred to the People's Procuratorate for prosecution, and Luo was expelled from the Party and public office shortly thereafter [5]. Legal Proceedings - On May 19, 2025, the People's Procuratorate filed charges against Luo for bribery, resulting in a sentence of ten years and one month in prison, along with a fine of 500,000 yuan [6]. Analysis of Private Lending - The analysis indicates that Luo's private lending activities, while profitable, did not constitute bribery as there was no evidence of using his official position to benefit the borrowers [9][10]. - The determination of whether such lending constitutes a violation of integrity discipline hinges on the potential impact on the impartial execution of public duties [10]. Recognition of Bribery in Lending - In a separate case involving a businessman named Peng, it was established that the loan provided by Luo was not based on a genuine need, indicating a potential bribery scenario masked as a loan [12][13]. - The relationship between the loan and the official's actions was scrutinized, revealing that the loan was a means to facilitate a quid pro quo arrangement [14][15]. Discounted Housing Transactions - Luo's purchase of property at a significantly reduced price from a developer was analyzed to determine if it constituted bribery. The sale price was 38% lower than the market rate, indicating a potential violation of integrity [17][19]. - The transaction was deemed a form of bribery as it was not a standard market practice and was directly linked to Luo's official actions [19]. Self-Reporting and Sentencing - Although Luo provided information about his bribery activities, it did not meet the legal criteria for self-reporting due to the nature of the crimes being similar to those already known to the authorities [21][22]. - His cooperation was acknowledged, leading to a lighter sentence despite not qualifying for self-reporting [22].

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the agreements between the parties constituted a private lending relationship, requiring the defendant to repay the plaintiff the principal amount of 360,000 yuan along with interest [1][2]. Group 1: Agreements and Financial Transactions - The first partnership agreement was signed in January 2022, where the plaintiff paid a guarantee deposit of 300,000 yuan with a profit-sharing reward of 36,000 yuan, and the agreement stipulated a return of the deposit after six months [1]. - The second partnership agreement was signed in July 2022, with the plaintiff paying an additional guarantee deposit of 200,000 yuan and a profit-sharing reward of 24,000 yuan, also with a six-month return period [1]. - After the agreements expired, the defendant only transferred 140,000 yuan back to the plaintiff and failed to return the remaining amounts despite multiple requests [1][2]. Group 2: Court's Rationale and Judgment - The court determined that the agreements lacked characteristics of joint operation, shared profits, or risk-sharing, indicating that the funds were effectively loans rather than investments [2]. - The court supported the plaintiff's claim for the return of the principal amount due to the overdue repayment terms outlined in the agreements [2]. - The interest claimed by the plaintiff was within the contractual and legal limits, leading the court to uphold the request for interest alongside the principal repayment [2].

Group 1: Legal Consequences of Defaulting on Loans - Borrowers may face lawsuits from creditors, who can seek court orders for repayment of principal and legal interest, leading to asset enforcement actions such as freezing bank accounts and seizing properties [2] - Being listed as a dishonest executor restricts high consumption activities, including travel and luxury accommodations, and may result in frozen bank accounts and direct deductions from wages or savings [2] - Assets such as real estate, vehicles, and financial accounts may be auctioned off to satisfy debts [2] Group 2: Criminal Risks - Deliberately evading repayment after a court ruling can lead to imprisonment for up to three years [2] - Engaging in fraudulent activities during borrowing, such as misrepresenting repayment ability or identity, can result in life imprisonment if the amounts involved are substantial [2] Group 3: Collection Methods and Responses - Some creditors resort to extreme collection methods, including harassment and threats, which can be reported to authorities [4] - Borrowers are advised to retain evidence of harassment and report it to the police [4] Group 4: Avoiding Worst-Case Scenarios - Negotiating repayment terms with creditors may lead to reduced interest payments to avoid legal proceedings [4] - In certain pilot cities, debtors may apply for personal bankruptcy, potentially leading to debt reduction [4] - Legal protections are available for borrowers facing excessive interest rates or violent collection tactics [4] Group 5: Summary of Consequences - Failing to repay private loans can result in lawsuits, asset enforcement, and being placed on a dishonesty list, which adversely affects children's education and employment opportunities, with severe cases leading to criminal charges [5]

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that in the absence of a repayment order in a private lending agreement, repayments are considered as interest first, followed by principal repayment, based on the provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China [4][8]. Group 1: Case Summary - Zhang Si borrowed 139,300 yuan from Yang Jin in April 2022, promising to repay by July 22, 2022, but failed to do so [2][3]. - Zhang Si made a partial repayment of 10,000 yuan in September 2022, leading to a dispute over whether this amount was considered principal or interest [3][4]. - The court found that since there was no agreed repayment order, the 10,000 yuan was classified as interest, and Zhang Si was ordered to repay the full principal amount along with the remaining interest [4][5]. Group 2: Legal Framework - The Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, Article 561, stipulates that in the absence of an agreement, repayments should be made in the order of related costs, interest, and then principal [5][8]. - This legal framework is designed to protect the interests of creditors by ensuring that interest, as the expected return on investment, is prioritized in repayment [8]. Group 3: Recommendations for Borrowers and Lenders - It is crucial for both parties to clearly specify the interest rate in any lending agreement to avoid disputes [9]. - Detailed documentation of the loan agreement, including all relevant terms and conditions, is essential to prevent legal complications [9]. - Retaining evidence such as transaction records and communication logs is advisable for both parties in case of future disputes [9].

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the legal implications of emotional extortion disguised as financial agreements, emphasizing that such agreements lack legal validity when they violate public order and morals [4][5][6] Group 1: Legal Findings - The court determined that the agreement between the parties was not a legitimate loan but rather a conditional gift, as it was made under the pressure of a breakup [2][4] - The court ruled that there was no actual lending relationship, and thus the loan agreement lacked legal effect [2][3] - The court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claims reinforces the principle that agreements violating public morals are invalid [4][6] Group 2: Social Implications - The case reflects a growing trend of individuals attempting to monetize emotional losses through legal agreements, which often leads to legal and ethical complications [5] - Emotional extortion tactics, such as threats of self-harm, reveal deeper psychological issues and the need for legal systems to address such behaviors [5][6] - The case serves as a reminder that legal documents must be grounded in genuine transactions to be enforceable, and that emotional disputes should not be commodified [5][6]

Core Viewpoint - The case revolves around a government official, referred to as "甲", who engaged in lending practices to local businessmen under the guise of high-interest loans, which are being scrutinized for potential bribery rather than legitimate private lending [2][10][19]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - "甲" served as the head of the Environmental Protection Bureau and later as the director of the Science and Technology Committee in a district, during which he received a total of 30 million yuan in bribes and 2.35 million yuan through high-interest loans from local businessmen [3][4][5]. Investigation Process - The investigation began on April 24, 2023, leading to "甲" being placed under detention on May 15, 2023, followed by expulsion from the party and public office on July 27, 2023 [6][7][8]. Legal Proceedings - On August 31, 2023, the district's People's Procuratorate filed a public prosecution against "甲" for bribery, resulting in a six-and-a-half-year prison sentence and a fine of 300,000 yuan on September 14, 2023 [9]. Analysis of Lending Practices - "甲" utilized his official position to lend money to businessmen who had no real need for loans, thereby coercing them into accepting high-interest terms due to his influence over their business operations [10][12][19]. - The lending practices were characterized by a lack of genuine borrower needs, with "甲" selecting financially stable businessmen to maximize his returns without facing market risks [12][13][19]. Nature of the Offense - The distinction between "甲's" actions and legitimate private lending is emphasized, as the relationships involved were not equal, but rather hierarchical, with "甲" exerting control over the businessmen [12][19]. - The legal interpretation of "甲's" actions suggests that they constitute bribery rather than mere disciplinary violations, as he leveraged his official capacity to extract financial benefits from those he managed [15][16][19]. Criminal Amount Assessment - The total amount involved in "甲's" bribery is assessed at 2.77 million yuan, with 2.35 million yuan classified as completed bribery and 420,000 yuan as attempted bribery due to the investigation halting further collection [20][21].