骗贷案频发 2025年12月29日，河南省洛阳市中级人民法院公布了一则刑事判决书，涉及暴某通过虚构购销合同、编 造贷款事由、伪造担保人资格等手段，多次以自己名义和他人名义在伊川农商银行的一家支行进行贷款 和续贷。 根据法院调查，2013年10月，暴某以自己名义在伊川农商银行的某店支行贷款10万元，贷款到期后无力 偿还，经多次续贷，至2018年12月续贷至35万元，此笔贷款至今未还已逾期。 2016年9月，暴某以牛某名义在某店支行贷款50万元，暴某实际获得贷款20万元，而时任当时支行行长 的刘某将其亲属名下的一辆奥迪车辆抵给暴某。该笔贷款到期后，暴某无力偿还，经过多次续贷，于 2018年12月续贷至80万元，至今未还已逾期。 中经记者杨井鑫北京报道 2025年年末，河南省公布了一批骗取贷款和诈骗的裁判文书，而多宗案件都指向了河南的一家农商银行 伊川农商银行。 在这些案例中，贷款人原本都不具备偿还贷款能力，依赖以贷养贷、循环续贷掩盖骗贷直至东窗事发。 值得一提的是，骗贷手法一致集中在了伪造贷款材料，涉事不少支行的"内鬼"也被查。 同样，2015年6月至2019年1月，刘某也采用提供虚假贷款资料、虚假贷款用途等方式 ...

【女子#假冒富豪太太骗贷1690余万元#，涉六罪获刑十七年】投行精英、公司老板、富豪丈夫旗下企业 即将上市……姚某打造"白富美"人设，注册空壳公司，联合员工张某及贷款中介谭某、李某，利用被害 人挂名法定代表人的身份骗取金融机构贷款1690余万元。经江苏省苏州市相城区检察院提起公诉，2025 年12月23日，法院以贷款诈骗罪，合同诈骗罪，盗窃罪，洗钱罪，信用卡诈骗罪，伪造公司、企业印章 罪，数罪并罚，判处被告人姚某有期徒刑十七年，并处罚金62.5万元；以骗取贷款罪、贷款诈骗罪、洗 钱罪分别判处被告人李某、张某有期徒刑二年六个月、一年十个月，各并处罚金4万元；以骗取贷款罪 判处被告人谭某有期徒刑二年三个月，并处罚金3万元。 ...

近日，裁判文书网披露了一则骗贷案，辽宁一家村镇银行被空壳公司骗贷7亿最终破产。 案件文书显示，付某某为开发房地产项目，以69家空壳公司的名义向原辽宁太子河村镇银行 申请贷款，三年时间骗取贷款109笔，合计7亿余元，对银行造成近9000万元的经济损失，最 终导致该银行破产。 值得注意的是，本案为金融机构内外勾结的典型案件。案发期间，原辽宁太子河村镇银行前 后两任均对付某某大开方便之门，"不做贷前调查，尽快放贷"，信贷经理及信贷员以虚假的 贷款材料制作贷款档案。 法院一审判决，付某某犯骗取贷款罪，判处有期徒刑六年十个月，并处罚金500万元，退赔 债务7.09亿元。终审驳回上诉，维持原判。 三年骗贷109笔、7亿余元 内外勾结掏空一家村镇银行 2016年至2019年间，付某某为开发辽宁省灯塔市佟二堡镇东方米兰房地产项目，向原辽宁太 子河村镇银行申请贷款。 付某某是如何通过银行贷款审批的？首先，付某某找到中间人刘某某，让其介绍借名人注册 企业后向银行申请贷款给自己使用，每笔贷款申请成功就能获得5万元好处费。 在"好处费"的诱惑下，刘某某为付某某找来多名借名人。付某某令自己的司机将借名人带到 工商所注册成立了69家企业 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a significant loan fraud case involving Huaneng Trust, a state-owned trust company, and its partners, which has resulted in over 1.7 billion yuan in unrecoverable trust funds. The case highlights severe regulatory and compliance failures within the financial industry, particularly in risk management and internal controls [4][5][17]. Summary by Sections Background of the Case - The fraud case, known as the "Credit Insurance Loan" scheme, began in June 2019 when Huaneng Trust partnered with Huishang Bank and a local insurance company to create a loan product designed to share risks among multiple parties [7]. - The scheme was initially presented as a financial innovation aimed at mutual benefits, but it devolved into a fraudulent operation involving collusion among various parties [5][6]. Mechanism of the Fraud - The fraud was orchestrated by Chi Jinlong, the actual controller of Shenzhen Xingrui Information Technology Co., who manipulated the loan process by using fake identities to secure loans [11]. - Key players, including bank officials and insurance executives, neglected their due diligence responsibilities, allowing fraudulent loans to be approved without proper verification [9][10]. Scale of the Fraud - The fraud involved multiple layers, with Chi Jinlong's operations leading to the misappropriation of 2.5 million yuan in the first loan and a total of 12.7 billion yuan in loans being fraudulently obtained by the team of former Century Huatong director Shao Heng [12][11]. - By the time the fraud was uncovered, only 8.3 billion yuan of the principal had been repaid, resulting in a loss of 4.2 billion yuan to financial institutions [12]. Regulatory and Compliance Failures - The case underscores significant deficiencies in the risk management practices of Huishang Bank, which faced multiple regulatory penalties for various compliance failures between 2021 and 2025, totaling over 22.79 million yuan [17][18]. - The article also highlights systemic issues within the bank's governance, including corruption among senior executives, which has led to a series of legal actions against them [19]. Judicial Outcomes - As of July 2025, Chi Jinlong faced criminal charges for loan fraud and bribery, while Shao Heng received a non-prosecution decision, raising concerns about the fairness of the judicial process [14][12]. - The case remains ongoing, with implications for the broader financial industry regarding the need for improved regulatory oversight and internal controls [5][17].

Core Points - A livestock company, Inner Mongolia Green Company, was involved in a loan fraud case where it pledged 800 tons of "beef and lamb" to a bank, which turned out to be water-injected duck meat [2][8] - The company's legal representative, Hu Guodong, was sentenced to 15 years in prison for loan fraud and contract fraud, causing significant financial losses to the bank and local farmers [2][7][12] - The case highlights severe deficiencies in the bank's due diligence and oversight processes, particularly regarding the verification of pledged collateral [11] Company Overview - Inner Mongolia Green Company is located in Abaga Banner, specializing in the slaughter, processing, storage, and sale of beef and lamb, with an annual production capacity of 6000 tons [5][15] - The company was once recognized as a leading poverty alleviation enterprise in Inner Mongolia and actively engaged in social responsibility initiatives [15][16] Fraud Details - Hu Guodong utilized a loan product called "Warehouse Financing" from Xilin Gol Rural Cooperative Bank, pledging livestock as collateral while actually using duck meat [8][9] - The fraudulent activities included misrepresenting the quality and type of pledged meat, leading to a loss of approximately 39.86 million yuan for the bank [9][10] - The company had been in financial distress, accumulating debts exceeding 57 million yuan, while continuing to mislead farmers into selling livestock under false pretenses [13][17] Legal Proceedings - The court found Hu Guodong guilty of multiple counts of fraud, resulting in a combined sentence of 15 years and fines totaling 200,000 yuan [7][12] - The case has raised concerns about the effectiveness of third-party supervision in the banking sector, as the bank relied heavily on external companies for collateral verification [11][14] Market Impact - The assets of the Green Company, including slaughtering and freezing equipment, have been auctioned multiple times, with no buyers, reflecting the company's deteriorating market position [3][5] - The case serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions regarding the importance of rigorous asset verification and ongoing monitoring of borrowers' financial health [11][18]

Core Insights - A scheme involving three shell companies managed to siphon off 150 million from banks over two years, ultimately leaving the mess for a listed company to handle while the core members enjoy their gains in Southeast Asia [2][4][5] Group 1: Company Operations - The three companies, A, B, and C, appeared unrelated but were operated by the same group, creating a façade of legitimate business activities [2] - They engaged in a "left hand to right hand" scheme, where transactions between the companies were structured to appear legitimate, including contracts, invoices, and logistics [2][4] - Over two years, they generated 200 million in bank transactions and obtained high-tech enterprise certification, presenting themselves as model companies to the banking system [2] Group 2: Loan Acquisition and Fund Misappropriation - A Company applied for a 50 million technology loan, supported by fabricated contracts and tax documents, which was approved after a thorough review [4] - Upon receiving the funds, they executed a series of circular transactions among the three companies, creating a closed-loop of financial activity that misled the banks [4][5] - They further inflated their revenue by fabricating 80 million in overseas orders and falsifying project wins, leading to increased credit limits from banks [5] Group 3: Asset Disposal and Legal Maneuvering - The core members used offshore companies to shield themselves from liabilities, ensuring that the registered capital was minimal and risks were contained [7] - They executed a final step of acquiring distressed companies, merging the assets and debts of A, B, and C into a new entity, which was then sold to a listed company [5][7] - The operations highlighted a broader issue of companies manipulating financial systems to transfer wealth overseas, leaving societal repercussions in their wake [7]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the alarming growth of the "debt-back" industry in China, where individuals take on significant debts through intermediaries, often leading to severe personal and legal consequences. The industry exploits vulnerable individuals, creating a cycle of fraud and financial distress [6][14][60]. Group 1: Debt-Back Process - Individuals like Zhao Qian take on debts of up to 20 million yuan, receiving only a fraction of that amount in cash, while their personal information is manipulated by intermediaries [3][5]. - The process of becoming a "professional debtor" involves a rapid and deceptive setup, where intermediaries handle all documentation and even accompany individuals to banks [5][9]. - The debtors face severe restrictions post-debt, including being labeled as "dishonest individuals," which limits their financial activities and social mobility [7][9]. Group 2: Industry Growth and Statistics - The financial black and gray market in China surpassed 280 billion yuan in early 2025, showing a 40% increase from 2023, with an estimated 8 million people involved in these activities [14]. - The number of loan fraud attacks captured in 2024 reached 4.14 million, with a 51% increase in perpetrators compared to the first half of the year [14]. Group 3: Intermediary Operations - Intermediaries categorize potential debtors into four groups based on their creditworthiness, with "clean" individuals being the most sought after for larger loans [18][21]. - The intermediaries often mislead debtors about the risks involved, focusing solely on extracting value from their credit [9][36]. - The financial benefits from loans are primarily divided among intermediaries and operators, with debtors receiving only a small percentage of the total loan amount [34][35]. Group 4: Legal and Ethical Implications - The article discusses the legal ramifications for debtors, including potential imprisonment for loan fraud, which many individuals underestimate [11][66]. - The banking sector faces challenges in managing risks associated with intermediaries, as the pressure to maintain loan volumes can lead to ethical compromises [15][50]. - The systemic issues within the banking and intermediary relationships contribute to a growing cycle of fraud, making it difficult for banks to effectively mitigate risks [60][62].

Core Viewpoint - The article reveals the alarming growth of the "debt-back" industry, highlighting the risks and consequences faced by individuals who engage in this practice, often under the guidance of intermediaries who downplay the dangers involved [4][5][14]. Group 1: Debt-Back Industry Overview - The debt-back industry is characterized by individuals taking on significant debts, often packaged as a shortcut to financial gain, leading to severe personal consequences such as social ostracism and legal repercussions [4][5][10]. - The financial black and gray market in China has seen a substantial increase, with the market size surpassing 280 billion yuan in early 2025, reflecting a 40% growth compared to 2023 [14]. - The number of individuals involved in the black and gray market is estimated to exceed 8 million in 2024, with a compound annual growth rate of 87% [14]. Group 2: Role of Intermediaries - Intermediaries play a crucial role in recruiting debt-bearers, often using deceptive practices to lure individuals into taking on debts without fully disclosing the associated risks [6][7][19]. - The classification of potential debt-bearers by intermediaries includes categories such as "clean" individuals with no credit history, "ordinary" individuals with some credit activity, and "blacklisted" individuals with poor credit records [20][22]. - Intermediaries often mislead individuals about the feasibility of taking on debt, with some even suggesting that being imprisoned for a short period could be a worthwhile trade-off for financial gain [10][11]. Group 3: Financial Institutions' Challenges - Financial institutions face significant challenges in managing risks associated with the debt-back industry, including moral hazards and difficulties in recovering loans [15][50]. - The internal culture within banks has shifted towards prioritizing growth, often at the expense of stringent risk management practices [16][48]. - The prevalence of fraudulent loan applications has led to increased scrutiny and the need for banks to enhance their risk assessment models to mitigate potential losses [46][47]. Group 4: Consequences for Debt-Bearers - Individuals who engage in debt-back schemes often find themselves unable to repay loans, leading to a status of "dishonesty" and potential legal consequences, including imprisonment [5][37]. - The financial gains for debt-bearers are typically minimal, with intermediaries and operators taking the majority of the loan amounts, leaving the debt-bearers with only a fraction of the total [36][41]. - The practice of "debt-back" is fundamentally a form of loan fraud, where intermediaries create false identities and financial documents to secure loans [41][42].

Core Viewpoint - A recent case in Kunshan, Jiangsu Province, highlights a fraudulent scheme involving the use of POS machines to illegally cash out loans, with the total amount involved exceeding 6 million yuan [1][4]. Group 1: Fraudulent Scheme Details - The criminal gang designed a comprehensive path for fraud, including "packaging qualifications, obtaining credit, and cashing out" [1][3]. - They targeted individuals without loan qualifications, creating fake employment and income documents to present them as high-income earners to banks [3]. - Once loans were approved, intermediaries used POS machines to fabricate transactions, allowing them to cash out the loan funds illegally [3][5]. Group 2: Financial Impact and Legal Consequences - The case involved over 37 suspects, with the total amount of fraudulent loans traced back from 183,000 yuan to over 6 million yuan [5]. - Key intermediaries earned illegal profits, with one individual helping to transfer over 300,000 yuan and profiting around 60,000 yuan [3][5]. - The court sentenced the main perpetrators to prison terms ranging from three to six years for illegal business operations and money laundering [7]. Group 3: Regulatory and Preventive Measures - The case has prompted the judiciary to issue recommendations to financial institutions to enhance their loan approval processes and risk assessments [7][10]. - Recent regulations have been established to restrict the use of POS machines for cash transactions, aiming to curb such fraudulent activities [10][11]. - The rise of illegal cash-out schemes poses significant risks to the financial system, necessitating stricter oversight and compliance measures [9][10].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the increasing prevalence of loan fraud schemes, particularly those involving the fabrication of borrower qualifications and the use of POS machines to create fictitious transactions for cashing out loans. It emphasizes the need for banks to enhance their risk management practices across the entire loan process to combat these fraudulent activities [1][5]. Group 1: Loan Fraud Cases - Recent cases, such as one in Jiangsu, involved fraudsters packaging unqualified individuals as high-income earners to obtain bank credit loans, resulting in over 6 million yuan in fraudulent loans [2]. - In another case, an individual used a fake identity and forged income documents to secure a loan of 250,000 yuan, ultimately profiting over 90,000 yuan from the scheme [3]. Group 2: Vulnerabilities in Bank Risk Management - Analysts point out that banks often rely too heavily on superficial compliance checks, which allows fraudsters to exploit weaknesses in the loan approval process, such as inadequate verification of income and identity [4]. - The lack of thorough monitoring of loan fund usage and insufficient background checks contribute to the success of loan fraud schemes [4][5]. Group 3: Recommendations for Improved Risk Management - Experts suggest that banks should shift from a passive compliance approach to an active risk management model, which includes multi-dimensional verification of borrower information and real-time monitoring of loan fund usage [6]. - Implementing a comprehensive database for sharing information on suspected loan fraud cases among banks is recommended to enhance detection and prevention efforts [8]. Group 4: Regulatory Actions - Regulatory bodies are intensifying efforts to combat loan fraud, including joint operations to target illegal lending practices and the involvement of bank employees in fraudulent activities [7]. - The Beijing Financial Regulatory Bureau has issued warnings about common fraud tactics and is working to hold banks accountable for their role in facilitating loan fraud [7].