Helping a friend borrow money from a bank, then lending it out and charging interest, this seemingly convenient "little effort" actually carries huge financial and legal risks. Recently, the People's Court of Futian District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, concluded a civil lending dispute case. The court ruled in accordance with the law that the party's act of obtaining loans from financial institutions for refinancing is invalid, and the relevant lending contracts are not protected by law. In the end, the lender not only failed to receive the agreed interest, but also bore the loss of capital occupation on their own, which can be described as "losing both the wife and the soldier". Previously, Tong sought help from his friend Qian due to financial difficulties. The two parties agreed that Qian would apply for a loan in his personal name from the bank and then lend the loan amount to Tong for use. Tong then issued a promissory note to Qian and promised to pay a certain amount of interest as a "hardship fee". After Qian agreed, he signed a loan contract with the bank and successfully borrowed 160000 yuan. After the payment was received, Qian transferred the money in full to Tong, who also issued a promissory note stating the repayment plan and interest. In the first few months, Tong was still able to repay as agreed, but over time, his repayment attitude became increasingly negative. He changed from paying on time to having to go through multiple reminders before reluctantly transferring funds. Finally, he refused to repay and completely lost contact. To avoid damaging personal credit records, Qian had to advance funds to repay the bank loan on his own. Due to the enormous repayment pressure, Qian even used a small loan platform to "demolish the east wall and make up for the west wall" to maintain repayment. After multiple unsuccessful attempts to demand repayment, Qian sued Tong to the Futian Court, demanding that he repay the remaining loan principal, bank interest, and the interest agreed upon by both parties. The court held that in private lending, the lender's funds must be their own funds. In this case, Qian's loan funds came from the bank credit funds he embezzled. This behavior essentially provides a credit "bridge" to parties who do not have financial credit qualifications, in order to avoid financial supervision. Such behavior not only increases financing costs but also disrupts the normal credit order. According to relevant laws and regulations, if a loan is borrowed from a financial institution and transferred, the private lending contract is invalid. Therefore, the loan agreement involved in the case should be deemed invalid, and the funds obtained by Tong based on the invalid contract should be refunded to Qian. The total amount of loan principal and interest that Qian should actually repay to the bank is the debt actually borne by him due to the transfer of loans. After deducting the amount already repaid by Tong, Tong still needs to return more than 120000 yuan to Qian. Regarding Qian's claim for a monthly interest rate of 0.17%, the court believes that the loan note involved in the case is invalid due to the act of transferring the loan, and Qian's cooperation with Tong in obtaining bank loans is at fault. Qian is responsible for the loss of his own funds, so the interest claim is not supported. Based on this, the court ruled that Tong should return more than 120000 yuan to Qian and rejected Qian's other litigation requests. Currently, the judgment has taken effect. The presiding judge stated that when Qian submitted a loan application to the bank and received the loan, he had already established a legal and effective loan contract relationship with the bank. As the borrower, he had the obligation to repay the loan principal and interest in full and on time according to the contract. Overdue repayment would directly affect personal credit and even face the bank's collection and litigation. Qian's behavior not only violates the agreement on the purpose of the loan in the loan contract, but also allows the credit funds of financial institutions to enter non agreed upon circulation channels, which not only disrupts the financial order, but also embeds multiple layers of legal risks. (New Society)