Sichuan the court decided the bank’s high credit card late fees unreasonable algorithm – Sohu news-oboni

  • hanson
  • January 19, 2018
  • Home Products & Services
  • Comments Off on Sichuan the court decided the bank’s high credit card late fees unreasonable algorithm – Sohu news-oboni

Sichuan: the court ruled that the bank’s high credit card late fees algorithm is unreasonable – Sohu news recently, a veto bank credit card overdue fees appeal court verdict, received widespread attention. In the judgment, the court held that the overdue fees and interest calculated by the plaintiff bank were as high as 78%, while the loans exceeding 24% years of interest were in violation of the state’s regulations on limiting the interest rate of the loan. Some media believe that this is the first case of credit card overdue penalty was rejected; in the legal experts view, "reasoning is very strong" is the biggest highlight of the verdict. The judgment issued by the people’s Court of Chengdu Sichuan hi tech Industrial Development Zone shows that in September 4, 2013, defendant Sha XX applied to the Great Wall branch of Chengdu hi tech Industrial Development Zone Branch for the platinum card. As of June 8, 2015, a total of 375079.3 yuan (including principal, interest and late fees) owed by Sha Moumou bank credit card. Chengdu branch of the high tech Zone of the plaintiff asked the defendant to return the arrears. In addition, the plaintiff asked Sarah to pay the arrears repayment date of interest (at 375079.3 yuan for the principal, credit card overdrafts monthly installments of interest, interest rate of 0.05% days) and late fees (375079.3 yuan according to the outstanding part of the 5% monthly pay late fees). The court held that the plaintiff and defendant had no dispute on the rights and obligations arising from the credit card transactions between the two parties as of June 8, 2015, and supported the corresponding claims of the plaintiff. But from June 9, 2015 interest, the court rejected the request of the bank, but the 339659.66 yuan as the principal, according to the annual interest rate of 24% to the date of payment of principal and interest. For this decision, the plaintiff attorney said it was not convenient to interview. Insiders at the Chengdu hi tech Zone, the plaintiff, said that the bank had put a lot of effort into the case, and that the bank would not spend more money on the case after the verdict. The person said that the case caused such a big concern, not because the amount is too large, "the plaintiff about 300000 yuan of arrears is not very big", the court verdict should be the focus of attention. The judgment details the calculation method of the overdue fees of the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff regards the principal and interest as the principal, and the principal generates 5% of the overdue fine every month and generates 0.05% interest per day. So calculated, a single overdue payment has reached 60% annually, the interest rate has reached 18%, the sum of both has reached annual interest rate of 78%. The court is based on the "provisions" of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the trial of civil borrowing cases applicable law twenty-sixth provisions of the first paragraph: "the two sides agreed loan interest rate does not exceed the annual interest rate of 24%, the lender requests the borrower interest payments according to the agreed interest rate, the people’s court shall support." The court held that borrowing beyond the interest rate of 24% years (whether natural or financial) violated the country’s regulations on limiting the interest rate of borrowing. Feng Hui, a doctoral tutor and associate professor of Law School of University of International Business and Economics, thinks that the existence of overdue fines has its rationality. First, the regulations of the people’s Bank of china.

四川:法院判决银行高额信用卡滞纳金算法不合理-搜狐新闻  近日,一份否决银行信用卡滞纳金诉求的法院判决书,受到广泛关注。   在这份判决书中,法院认为,原告银行计算的滞纳金和利息,年利率高达78%,而超出24%年利率的借款均违反了国家有关限制借款利率的规定。   有媒体认为这是信用卡滞纳金被否决第一案;在法学专家看来,“说理性非常强”是这份判决书最大的亮点。   这份由四川成都高新技术产业开发区人民法院出具的判决书显示,2013年9月4日,被告沙某某向中国银行成都高新技术产业开发区支行申请了长城环球通白金信用卡。截至2015年6月8日,沙某某银行信用卡欠款共计375079.3元(包含本金、利息及滞纳金)。原告中行成都高新区支行请求判令被告归还欠款。   另外,原告要求沙某某偿还至欠款付清之日止的利息(以375079.3元为本金,信用卡透支按月计收复利,日利率为0.05%)、滞纳金(按照375079.3元未偿还部分的5%每月支付滞纳金)。   法院认为,原告和被告关于截至2015年6月8日双方之间因涉案信用卡交易产生的权利义务并无争议,对原告主张的相应诉讼请求,予以支持。但从2015年6月9日起的利息,法院否决了银行的请求,而是将339659.66元作为本金,按照年利率24%计算至本息付清之日。   对于这个判决,原告代理律师称不方便接受采访。原告中行成都高新区支行内部人士表示,银行前期为此案投入了很大精力,判决之后银行不会在这个案件上再花费精力。该人士说,该案引起这么大的关注,不是因为数额太大,“原告30多万元的欠款不算很大”,法院判决书应该是关注焦点。   这份判决书详细列出了原告银行的滞纳金计算方式。原告将前期本息作为本金,该本金每个月产生5%的滞纳金并且产生每日0.05%的利息。如此计算下来,单滞纳金每年已经达到60%,利率也达到18%,两者相加已经达到年利率78%。   法院判决的依据是《最高人民法院关于审理民间借贷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》第二十六条第一款规定:“借贷双方约定的利率未超过年利率24%,出借人请求借款人按照约定的利率支付利息的,人民法院应予支持。”法院认为,超出24%年利率的借款(无论自然人抑或金融借款)均违反了国家有关限制借款利率的规定。   对外经济贸易大学法学院博士生导师、副教授冯辉认为,滞纳金的存在有其合理性。第一,中国人民银行规定的银行卡管理办法支持银行收取信用卡滞纳金;第二,消费者在申请办卡时是自由订立合同,处于自由的意志支配。“滞纳金本身没问题,属于一种民事惩罚性的赔偿,也是行业现象,主要是银行对持卡人的一种监管和约束,通过滞纳金形成较高的违约震慑”。   判决书广泛引用宪法、合同法、商业银行法及司法解释等论证信用卡高额滞纳金的不合理性。法院认为,一方面,国家以贷款政策限制民间借款形成高利;另一方面,在信用卡借贷领域又形成超越民间借贷限制一倍或者几倍的利息。这显然极可能形成一种“只准州官放火,不许百姓点灯”的外在不良观感。   判决书小结中提到:商业银行错误将相关职能部门的规定作为自身高利、高息的依据,这有违于合同法及商业银行法的规定,也有违于社会公众对正义与公平的基本理解。这种解读是违背相关职能部门制定规定的良好出发点和立法宗旨的。   京师律师事务所金融诈骗法律事务部主任张雪峰律师认为银行收取滞纳金是违法的,“最起码违反公平公正的原则,这么高的滞纳金突破了现在的法律框架,跟宪法里面最基本的原则也是相违背的”。   银行因信用卡欠款收取滞纳金,到底是一种震慑违约的方式,还是违法行为?银行和信用卡用户两方利益如何得到平衡?   中央财经大学金融学院教授郭田勇表示,目前情况下,银行收取滞纳金是正常的,是一种保证自身资产安全的需要,如果滞纳金收得过高,未来可以考虑为滞纳金设个“顶”,超过那个“顶”就不用收滞纳金了。   冯辉对规范信用卡滞纳金收取也有类似的看法。他认为,可以建立一个封顶制度或阶梯制度,根据信用卡透支未偿还的时间、金额呈阶梯形收取滞纳金,就像交水电费一样,可以平衡滞纳金的惩罚性和合同的违约性,通过这种阶梯性的、封顶性的额度上限,在消费者权益和银行合理诉求之间取得平衡。   此外,银行业存在着信用卡逾期还款仍按照全额计息的现象。张雪峰认为,银行格式条款规定,逾期按全部数额收取滞纳金。“如果消费者欠了1万元,已经还了9900元,银行还要按照全额1万元收取,这就是霸王条款。”他说。相关的主题文章: