来源：柒财经 一次性信用修复政策发布后，在社交媒体平台引发了亮征信、求鉴定的风潮。 风潮的兴起，除了与政策精准发力直接相关外，与浮在水面下的贷款中介伺机而动、推波助澜，也联系 紧密。 他们乔装打扮、趁虚而入，箭无虚发，左右"通吃"， 一场针对信用受损群体的围猎已悄然拉开帷幕。 01 真实的困惑和怀疑 柒财经近期发现，在小红书等社交媒体平台上，一条寥寥几字的"免费帮看征信报告"帖，动辄可以收到 上千条留言。从内容看，其中不少是已经不抱希望的征信瑕疵群体，被修复政策重新激活，希望请大神 网友把把脉，看看自己的征信是否还有救。 事实上，本次修复政策虽然简洁明了："逾期期限（2020年至2025年6个完整年度）、逾期金额（一万元 以内）明确，还款期限（2026年3月31日前）、修复方式（免申请自动修复）"，但梳理网友的求助内容 后不难发现，由于不同金融机构的业务类型、报送征信方式的不同，部分逾期是否可以修复确实不易判 断。 比如，很多小贷业务为了适配传统按月报送的征信规则，会选择将逾期合并上报征信系统，在这种情况 下，征信报告上单笔超过1万元的逾期，有可能实际上代表着多笔万元以下逾期。 还有，部分网友从政策表述的字面 ...

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving the loan intermediary "Xin Xin Hui Lin" has prompted a collective response from multiple banks in Shenzhen, emphasizing the need for consumer awareness against false advertising and the importance of regulatory compliance in the financial sector [1][3][12]. Group 1: Incident Overview - Multiple banks, including Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, and others, have publicly distanced themselves from the loan intermediary "Xin Xin Hui Lin," clarifying that there is no partnership and warning consumers about misleading advertisements [1][3]. - As of July 17, a total of 20 banks have issued statements against "Xin Xin Hui Lin," which falsely claimed partnerships with these banks and advertised services such as "interest rate optimization" [3][12]. - "Xin Xin Hui Lin" acknowledged its lack of authorization from banks and stated that it has completed a comprehensive rectification of its advertising practices following warnings from banks and regulatory bodies [1][4]. Group 2: Business Practices and Consumer Risks - The intermediary's advertisements included claims of low-interest rates and partnerships with multiple banks, which were found to be misleading, as the banks confirmed no such collaborations existed [3][4]. - The company offered services that included "debt optimization" and "interest rate reduction," which are not widely endorsed in the financial industry due to potential risks to consumers [9][10]. - Consumers were often charged additional fees for services that were not clearly disclosed, leading to concerns about the transparency of the intermediary's business practices [9][10]. Group 3: Regulatory and Industry Response - The incident has highlighted the ongoing issues with illegal loan intermediaries misrepresenting themselves as banks, prompting regulatory bodies to take action against such practices [12][13]. - Experts suggest that the collective statements from banks serve as a necessary measure for compliance and brand protection, potentially deterring future misconduct by intermediaries [13][14]. - The need for a collaborative approach between regulators and financial institutions is emphasized to establish a monitoring and enforcement mechanism against fraudulent practices in the loan intermediary sector [13][14].

Core Viewpoint - The banking sector is tightening its collaboration with loan intermediaries amid increasing regulatory scrutiny, with several banks publicly denying any association with illegal loan intermediaries, particularly naming "Xin Xin Hui Lin" as a problematic entity [1][2][4]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - Regulatory authorities, including the Ministry of Public Security and the Financial Regulatory Bureau, have launched a special campaign to combat illegal loan intermediaries and related financial crimes, focusing on four main areas: illegal loan intermediary services, malicious debt evasion, illegal insurance claims, and improper debt collection practices [4][5]. - The Shenzhen Financial Regulatory Bureau has emphasized that addressing illegal loan intermediaries is a key focus of their work [4]. Group 2: Bank Responses - Approximately 15 banks in Shenzhen, including major institutions like Bank of China and Agricultural Bank of China, have issued statements clarifying that they do not collaborate with illegal intermediaries [2][4]. - Banks are enhancing their management of intermediary partners, with some institutions completely halting cooperation with loan intermediaries and conducting strict internal audits to prevent collusion [5][6]. Group 3: Issues with Loan Intermediaries - "Xin Xin Hui Lin" has been accused of misleading marketing practices, claiming to lower loan interest rates from 4.5% to 2.5%, which raises concerns about exaggerated claims [1][8]. - The company has been reported to use aggressive marketing tactics, including misleading advertisements in public spaces, to create the illusion of partnerships with banks [9]. - New trends in the loan intermediary market include the use of fraudulent marketing practices to attract consumers and the manipulation of property valuations to secure excessive loans [10].

Core Viewpoint - A collective response from multiple banks in Shenzhen has emerged against a loan intermediary, Xin Xin Hui Lin, highlighting the risks of false advertising and the importance of consumer awareness in financial transactions [1][4][19]. Group 1: Bank Responses - Major banks including Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, and China Bank have issued statements denying any partnership with the intermediary Xin Xin Hui Lin, warning consumers about misleading advertisements claiming cooperation with banks [4][5][19]. - These banks emphasized that they do not charge intermediary fees or any additional costs for loan services, urging consumers to be cautious of claims like "lower interest rates" and "internal approvals" [4][5][20]. - Several other banks, including Citic Bank and Ping An Bank, have also clarified their non-involvement with the intermediary, stating that any unauthorized use of their names for loan services will be legally pursued [5][6][20]. Group 2: Intermediary's Defense - In response to the banks' accusations, Xin Xin Hui Lin claimed that it has no partnerships with any financial institutions and is merely providing consulting services to the community [9][11]. - The intermediary acknowledged past issues but asserted that it has made corrections and is open to supervision, while maintaining that its service fees are clearly stated [11][12]. - Despite its claims of legitimacy, the intermediary's previous marketing efforts suggested partnerships with major banks, raising questions about its current assertions [11][14]. Group 3: Regulatory Context - The collective actions of banks in Shenzhen reflect a broader national trend to combat illegal loan intermediaries, which have been known to exploit consumers through deceptive practices [19][21]. - Regulatory bodies have previously issued warnings about the dangers posed by such intermediaries, advising consumers to verify information and use legitimate channels for financial services [17][21][22]. - Recent initiatives by financial regulators aim to strengthen oversight and crack down on illegal activities in the loan sector, emphasizing the need for consumer vigilance [21][22].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the blurred boundaries of traditional financial products due to modern financial innovations, highlighting common issues and consumer rights protection paths in the financial sector [1]. Group 1: Case Studies - **Case 1: Misleading Sales of Bank Wealth Management Products** - A consumer purchased a wealth management product from a bank that was misrepresented as "capital protected and guaranteed returns," while it was actually a high-risk, non-capital protected product, leading to significant losses upon maturity [3]. - The Beijing Financial Court ruled that the bank engaged in misleading advertising and failed to adequately disclose risks, violating the Consumer Rights Protection Law and the Commercial Bank Wealth Management Product Sales Management Measures, resulting in a partial compensation ruling and a requirement for the bank to rectify its sales processes [4]. - **Case 2: Fraud by Illegal Loan Intermediaries** - Consumers were lured by illegal intermediaries with promises of "quick loan processing" and "low interest rates," who exaggerated loan difficulties and charged excessive service fees, leading to reports against these intermediaries [7]. - Regulatory authorities, in collaboration with law enforcement, cracked down on these illegal intermediaries, shutting down multiple non-compliant firms [8]. - **Case 3: Data Breach by Financial Technology Platforms** - A financial platform experienced a technical vulnerability that led to the leakage of users' sensitive information, which was subsequently used for telecom fraud, prompting consumer complaints against the platform [11]. - The local internet information office mandated the platform to rectify the issue within a specified timeframe and imposed fines under the Personal Information Protection Law [13]. Group 2: Consumer Rights Protection Tips - For bank wealth management products, consumers should: - Request product brochures and pay special attention to "risk levels" and "return types" [5]. - Record or obtain written confirmation of key promises such as "capital protection" from sales personnel [5]. - Utilize internal complaint mechanisms or report to the banking regulatory authority's hotline [5]. - In dealing with illegal loan intermediaries, consumers are advised to: - Verify the operating licenses of intermediary companies through the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System [9]. - Be cautious of "upfront fees" and reject demands for prepayment of service fees or deposits [9]. - Report any false advertising to local financial supervision authorities [9]. - For financial technology platforms, consumers should: - Limit unnecessary permissions for apps, such as access to contacts and location [14]. - Set strong, unique passwords for financial accounts and update them quarterly [14]. - Seek civil compensation from the platform if they suffer losses due to data breaches [14].