来源：深浅Daily 哈尔滨哈银消费金融有限责任公司（下称哈银消金）的千万股权"遇冷"，目前已启动二拍，起拍时间为 2026年2月6日。 1月20日，哈银消金1.6667%股权在阿里资产拍卖平台上开拍24小时后因无人出价而流拍，该笔股权为 公司第六大股东黑龙江赛格国际贸易有限公司（下称赛格国贸）持有，已被黑龙江省哈尔滨市中级人民 法院冻结。一拍起拍价为4205.448万元，较评估价4672.72万元下浮一成。即便给出折价空间仍未能吸引 投资者参与。 流拍后平台迅速启动二次拍卖程序，起拍价进一步下探至3784.9万元，较一拍折价约420.5万元，折价幅 度约10%。截至发稿市场观望情绪依旧浓厚。 作为东北地区首家持牌消费金融机构，哈银消金股权拍卖遇冷形势与商业银行不断增资、互联网企业纷 纷涉足的行业"争夺"局面形成反差。在业内看来可能有有四点原因： 首先是股权占比过低，战略价值低。哈尔滨银行持股53%绝对控股，度小满持股30%，1.6667%的股权 在主要股东的绝对控股的格局下，即便成为小股东也难以对公司的战略和经营产生实质性影响力。对追 求控制权或战略协同的机构缺乏吸引力，长期价值存疑。 其次是监管准入与变更 ...

登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 来源：新经济观察团 在首轮股权拍卖流拍之后，哈尔滨哈银消费金融有限责任公司（下称"哈银消金"）1.6667%的股权已经 启动二拍。 新经济观察团在阿里资产网站发现，该笔股权为哈银消费金融第六大股东黑龙江赛格国际贸易有限公司 （本文称"赛格国贸"）所持有，该笔股权的评估价4672.72万元，起拍价约3784.9万元，二拍的起拍时间 为2026年的2月6日，距今14天左右。而赛格国贸所持有的该笔股权已被黑龙江省哈尔滨市中级人民法院 冻结。 但在1月20日，哈银消金这笔股权就因无人出价而流拍，彼时起拍价为4205.448万元。也就是说，与首 次起拍价格相比，二拍起拍价格已经缩水近10%。 作为持牌消费金融机构，哈银消金这笔千万级股权遭遇流拍与折价二拍，在业内看来可能有以下原因： 第一，股权占比过低，对投资人吸引力较弱。此次拍卖股权仅占总股本的1.6667%。在哈尔滨银行等主 要股东的绝对控股的格局下，即便成为小股东也难以对公司的战略和经营产生实质性影响力。特别是对 寻求控制权，乃至深度战略协同的资方来说几乎没有吸引力； 第二，监管趋严、竞争压力大，前景难料。2024 ...

为验证"不知情被贷款"的可能性，笔者对度小满平台的借款流程进行了全链路实测。 在使用过程中，发现安全门槛设置颇为严格：在借款发生前，系统要求进行人脸识别、身份证验证等身 份核实；在实际签署协议及提现前后，还需进行其它身份核验。 近期，关于互联网金融平台电子合同签署合规性的讨论在网络引发热议。有自媒体文章称，用户在度小 满平台借款时，电子签章显示为"360借条"等第三方字样，质疑平台存在"冒用电子签章"、合同是否有 效等问题。 针对舆论焦点，笔者向度小满方面进行了深入核实，亲身体验了借款流程，并咨询了相关法律界人士。 技术解密：数字证书是电子身份，合规复用并非冒用 此次争议中，最大的误解在于：为什么在度小满办业务，会调用之前在其他平台（如360）生成的数字 证书？ 对此，技术专家用了一个通俗的比方来解释这一行业底层逻辑："实际上，数字身份（证书）就相当于 我们的电子身份，它不是某一张固定的、只能用一次的手写签名图片。正如实体身份证在有效期内，既 可以拿去坐高铁，也可以拿去住酒店一样；数字证书只要在有效期内，且经过真实性核验的，也是可以 通用的。" "虽然基于可追溯性原则，可能会调用出该数字身份首次生成的事由（如 ...

（来源：大众新闻-大众日报） 从度小满平台申请一笔5000元的借款，协议约定的综合年化利率23.4%，用户逾期遭遇暴力催收后，在 验证借款协议电子签名时发现，用户签名竟然是从"360借条"直接调用。律师认为，"度小满"涉嫌冒用 签名，导致合同并未成立。 日前，来自黑龙江的李先生，向大众新闻记者讲述了自己在度小满平台的借款经历。2021年9月至2022 年5月，李先生先后4次通过度小满平台申请借款，每笔借款期限均为12期。累加之下，在第一笔借款还 至第12期时，李先生的借款出现逾期，随后他便遭到了暴力催收。 "当时就是碍于面子，才选择借网贷。可逾期没几天，催收人员就给我的亲友、同事、领导打电话、发 短信，这让我颜面扫地。为了跟他们打官司，我又仔细翻看了当时的协议，这才发现协议有问题。"李 先生说。 李先生告诉大众新闻记者，他将借款合同上传至一家电子签名鉴别网站，结果显示"文件自签名以来未 被修改"。然而，在与发证机构中金金融认证中心有限公司沟通后，却发现，签名申请单位是上海淇毓 信息科技有限公司，即360借条的运营方。 1月14日至16日，记者进而以用户身份联系度小满平台。平台工作人员告诉记者，他们在为李先生申 ...

Core Viewpoint - Chinese online lending companies have faced significant failures in India, contrary to their profitable operations in China, leading to a complete loss of investment in the Indian market [2][3][10]. Group 1: Profitability in China - Online lending is a highly profitable industry in China, with companies like Qifu Technology reporting net profits of 2.7 billion in 2021, 4.4 billion in 2022, and projected 6.264 billion in 2024 [2]. - Other platforms such as Baidu's Du Xiaoman are also profitable, with a projected net profit of 859 million in 2024 [2]. Group 2: Challenges in India - Chinese online lending companies initially viewed India as a lucrative market, expecting to profit from lending and collecting interest [6]. - However, they encountered insurmountable challenges, leading to a total loss of investment [6][10]. Group 3: Collection Difficulties - Effective debt collection is crucial for profitability in online lending. In China, aggressive collection methods, despite being controversial, yield results [6]. - In India, these methods fail due to language barriers, lack of a credit system, and cultural differences, making it difficult to enforce repayment [7][9]. Group 4: High Default Rates - The bad debt rate for Chinese online lending companies in India has soared to 80%, meaning only 20 out of every 100 units lent are recovered [9]. - This high default rate, combined with operational costs, results in significant financial losses for these companies [9][10]. Group 5: Regulatory Environment - New regulations from the Reserve Bank of India require online lending companies to limit interest rates and increase transparency, further complicating profitability for Chinese firms [11]. - The lack of a high-credit society in India makes it nearly impossible for these companies to operate profitably, leading to widespread closures [11].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses allegations of financial fraud against 360's gaming business, initiated by former executive Yu Hong, who claims that the scale of the fraud is "at least tens of billions" and involves "all financial fraud" through methods like "self-recharge" to fabricate revenue [3][8][10]. Group 1: Allegations and Responses - Yu Hong, a former senior executive at 360, publicly accused Zhou Hongyi of financial fraud in the gaming sector, claiming he has data to support his allegations and will disclose it online [3][8]. - In response, 360 issued a statement denying the allegations, asserting that the company's financial data has been audited and that Yu Hong's claims are "malicious defamation" [4][10]. - The stock price of 360 dropped significantly following the allegations, with a 5.07% decline on December 16, resulting in a market value loss of approximately 4 billion yuan [10]. Group 2: Background of Yu Hong - Yu Hong was a senior vice president at 360 after the acquisition of his company, Quyou Group, in 2014, and he was involved in the gaming business before leaving in 2015 [11][12]. - After leaving 360, Yu Hong became active in the blockchain sector and was known for his influential role in a prominent blockchain community [12][13]. - Tensions between Yu Hong and Zhou Hongyi reportedly began in 2018, indicating a history of conflict that may have influenced the recent allegations [13]. Group 3: Historical Context of 360's Gaming Business - 360's gaming business has faced scrutiny in the past, including accusations of inflating revenue during its time on the U.S. stock market [15][17]. - The gaming segment has diminished in importance within 360's overall business strategy, now categorized under "Internet value-added services" [22][24]. - Financial performance data shows that the gaming business contributed only about 0.2% to the company's overall revenue from 2018 to 2024, indicating a significant decline [24][26]. Group 4: Current Business Structure and Future Outlook - 360's revenue structure has shifted, with the main business segments now being Internet services, digital security, and smart hardware, with gaming playing a minor role [26][28]. - The company is focusing on AI and robotics as new growth areas, but these investments are still in the development phase and exert pressure on profitability [28][30]. - The outcome of the allegations could significantly impact 360's ability to navigate its new business strategies and maintain stability moving forward [30].

Core Insights - The article highlights the dual nature of growth and risk faced by Qifu Technology, emphasizing its reliance on traditional credit matching and traffic distribution rather than technological barriers or ecosystem capabilities [3][5] - Qifu Technology has faced multiple regulatory penalties due to issues such as illegal debt collection and data misuse, raising concerns about its strategic direction and operational integrity [2][4][10] Company Overview - Qifu Technology has completed a brand upgrade from 360 Borrowing to Qifu Borrowing and has partnered with 159 financial institutions, boasting over 240 million registered users [2] - The company’s core business revolves around internet consumer finance, particularly through products like 360 Borrowing, but it has encountered significant complaints related to aggressive debt collection practices [4][6] Competitive Landscape - Qifu Technology's growth contrasts sharply with competitors like Ant Group, Tencent, and JD Technology, which have established robust ecosystems based on technology, social engagement, and supply chain finance [3][8] - The competitive environment has shifted, with players focusing on building sustainable business models and compliance in a tightening regulatory landscape, making Qifu's previous strategies less viable [9][10] Regulatory Challenges - The departure of founder Zhou Hongyi from the board raises concerns about Qifu Technology's future amid increasing regulatory scrutiny, particularly regarding debt collection methods and user privacy [6][7] - The company has been labeled as a "penalty-heavy" entity due to its regulatory issues, which could impact its valuation and fundraising capabilities [7][12] Strategic Recommendations - To achieve sustainable growth, Qifu Technology must focus on rebuilding trust with users and regulators by enhancing compliance mechanisms and transparency in operations [10][11] - The company should leverage technology not just for cost reduction but also to innovate financial products and improve risk assessment models [10][11] Future Outlook - The future of Qifu Technology hinges on its ability to balance rapid expansion with compliance, as prioritizing growth could lead to further regulatory penalties [12] - The company possesses valuable assets such as technological capabilities and a large user base, but it must cultivate a culture of respect for financial regulations and user trust to succeed in the long term [12]

Core Viewpoint - The Chinese Internet Finance Association has issued an initiative to strengthen collaboration in the internet finance sector to combat "black and gray industry" activities, urging institutions to unite against these illegal practices [1][2]. Group 1: Industry Response - Multiple institutions, including Meituan Xiaolai, Lexin, and Qifu Technology, have actively responded to the initiative, indicating a collective effort to address the issue [1]. - Internet finance companies have been engaged in combating "black and gray industry" activities, with Meituan Xiaolai reporting assistance to law enforcement in 77 cases related to various financial crimes since 2022 [2]. Group 2: Nature of "Black and Gray Industry" - The "black and gray industry" encompasses illegal activities such as fraudulent loan intermediaries, fake financial apps, and organized debt evasion, which severely disrupt the normal order of the financial industry [1][2]. - For instance, as of June 15, 2023, there were 1,927 counterfeit apps impersonating Ping An Puhui and 1,846 for 360 Borrowing, which lure victims with exaggerated claims [1]. Group 3: Regulatory Actions - Regulatory bodies have been actively working to address the "black and gray industry," with measures including a notice from the former China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission to crack down on illegal agency practices [2]. - A new financial black industry crackdown platform named AIF (Ai Ma) has been launched, involving several financial institutions to enhance collaboration in combating these illegal activities [2]. Group 4: Recommendations for Improvement - Experts suggest establishing a multi-departmental coordination mechanism involving finance, public security, and market regulation to enhance the effectiveness of combating "black and gray industry" activities [3]. - There is a call for improved legal frameworks and increased penalties for illegal activities to deter such practices, alongside strengthening consumer protection systems within financial institutions [3].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the increasing prevalence of fraudulent apps disguised as legitimate financial services, emphasizing the need for public awareness and vigilance against such scams [1][2][3]. Group 1: Recent Fraudulent Apps Exposed - The Information Communication Industry Anti-Fraud Center has identified and exposed 17 different types of fraudulent apps, including misleading names like "Tencent Payment," "Douyin Poverty Alleviation Wallet," and "360 Borrowing" [3][4]. - These apps often impersonate well-known internet platforms to carry out scams, posing significant risks to users [3][8]. Group 2: Specific Fraud Cases - A notable case involves the "Tencent Payment" app, which fraudulently claims to be a high-end payment product, enticing users to provide personal information and bind their bank accounts [4][5]. - The app employs a "referral" strategy, using virtual currencies and stock options to deceive victims, ultimately leading to the theft of sensitive information [6][8]. Group 3: General Trends in Fraud - The article notes that as digitalization accelerates, new investment fraud techniques are emerging, making it difficult for the public to recognize and avoid scams [10]. - Many fraudsters create counterfeit apps that lure users into providing sensitive information, resulting in financial losses [11]. Group 4: Public Awareness and Prevention - The Information Communication Industry Anti-Fraud Center urges the public to enhance their awareness and share anti-fraud guidelines to protect their financial security [9]. - The article provides three key strategies for identifying counterfeit websites, including checking domain suffixes, port numbers, and SSL certificates [17][18][20].

周鸿祎昨天在直播中，突然有人过来问： "周总，欠你 360 借条的钱可以不还吗？ " 周回应"那不是我的公司"… 周鸿祎曾担任奇富科技的董事及董事会主席，但是 2024 年 8 月辞任相关职务，不再直接参与管理。 这个回复成功让周总喜提热搜了。 360 借条的发展历程 360 借条的实际运营主体是奇富科技，奇富的前身是 360 数科。 2016 年 7 月，360 金融集团成立，由 360 金服（北京奇步天下科技有限公司运营的集团）孵化。 2018 年 9 月，360 金融集团独立运营。 2020 年 8 月，"360 金融"品牌正式升级为"360 数科"。 2022 年，360 数科从 360 集团分拆独立并在港交所上市（法律层面已脱离 360 集团直接控制） 2023 年 2 月，360 数科更名为奇富科技。（进一步淡化 360 的标签） 2024 年，360 借条更名为奇富借条，但名字还在用（刚在应用市场搜360 借条的结果如下） 360 借条和周鸿祎的关系 从法律层面来说，确实和周没关系了 。 但是啊，根据奇富科技 2024 年财报资料，截至 2024 年末，周鸿祎仍通过 Aerovane Compa ...