（来源：大众新闻-大众日报） 近日，四川成都警方打掉一个伪装成住房租赁公司的"套路贷"犯罪团伙，5名核心嫌疑人悉数落网。 当叶女士还以为"低息贷款+固定租金"是双赢合作时，第一份《违约告知函》已悄然送达。 2024年3月，叶女士收到了公司发来的第一份《违约告知函》，称她的房屋被认定为群租房需要清退，依据房屋托管合同，她需支付年租金30%的违约 金，共计8.28万元。 2023年11月，叶女士需要资金周转，这时她接到了一通电话，对方声称自己与"金融管理部门"合作，能提供"内部绿色渠道"进行贷款。更让叶女士惊讶的 是，对方准确报出了她刚被银行拒贷的额度、用途，甚至连征信查询次数都了如指掌。 三天后，叶女士与电话中的业务员见了面，对方为叶女士量身定制了三份合同： 第一份《借款协议》约定借款13万元，期限6个月，月息1.5%，这笔钱用于帮助叶女士解决燃眉之急。 这起告破的案件，揭开了一个令人震惊的债务陷阱：被害人借款13万元，不到1年半的时间，债务竟然利滚利到将近1300万元，名下近千万的房产也被迫 抵押。 第二份则是一份《房屋托管合同》，在了解到叶女士有一套空置房屋后，对方提出可以帮助叶女士找到合适的租户，无论是否 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article reveals a shocking debt trap involving a loan shark gang disguised as a housing rental company, where victims' debts can escalate dramatically due to hidden fees and penalties [1][2]. Group 1: Case Overview - The case involves a victim, Ms. Ye, who borrowed 130,000 yuan and saw her debt balloon to nearly 12.6 million yuan in just over a year due to compounded interest and hidden fees [1][15]. - The gang used precise personal information to lure victims, making them believe in the legitimacy of the loan offers [2][4]. Group 2: Contractual Manipulation - The gang presented three contracts to Ms. Ye: a loan agreement, a housing management contract promising fixed rental income, and an authorization letter with hidden clauses for penalties [6][10]. - The hidden clause in the authorization letter allowed the company to charge a 30% penalty on annual rent if the victim defaulted, which was not initially noticed by Ms. Ye [8][10]. Group 3: Debt Escalation Mechanism - After the initial loan, Ms. Ye was charged various fees, reducing her actual loan amount to 104,000 yuan, while the company failed to pay any promised rental income [10]. - The debt snowballed as the company continuously charged her high penalties under the guise of contract violations, leading to a total debt of 12.6 million yuan by March 2025 [15][19]. Group 4: Company Operations and Revenue Model - The rental company, established in 2018 with a registered capital of 10 million yuan, appeared legitimate but engaged in illegal practices to generate revenue [16][19]. - The company's income structure was heavily skewed, with only 6.32 million yuan from rental income compared to 42.71 million yuan from penalty fees, indicating a focus on exploiting contractual loopholes [19][21]. Group 5: Legal and Regulatory Insights - The gang's operations were exposed through unusual arbitration cases, where multiple victims faced similar issues without appearing in court [22][26]. - The police investigation revealed that the company had connections with other financial institutions, indicating a broader network of illegal lending practices [21][26]. Group 6: Recommendations and Precautions - Authorities emphasize the importance of vigilance against low-interest loans and fixed income offers, advising victims to retain all documentation and report to the police immediately if they suspect they are in a loan trap [28][30].