Reasearch On The Legislative Regulation Of Financial Lending Interest Rate

At present,China’s lending interest rate adopts a "dual-track system" regulatory model,the private lending interest rate is regulated by a ceiling,and the financial lending interest rate adopts a market-oriented model.However,at present,the phenomenon of usurious lending in various financial institutions is common,which is not only manifested in the high interest rate of various types of lending interest rates,but also in the use of overdue interest rates,penalty interest and other liquidated damages and hidden interest rates composed of various fees to increase the cost of using funds of borrowers and increase the borrowing interest rate in disguise.As to whether China’s financial institutions can borrow at high interest rates,the central bank,as an administrative organ,stipulates that the financial lending interest rates are market-oriented,but the Supreme People’s Court,as the judicial organ,has wavered in the legislation on whether the regulation of financial lending interest rates has fluctuated,resulting in a conflict between the administrative organs and the judicial organs in terms of regulatory attitudes;regarding whether the unified regulation of the scope of usurious lending interest rates includes non-principal interest rates,the Civil Code stipulates that the lending interest rate and the default metal are two parts in the contract,The cost of services should be the right of the parties to the intermediary contract,but the Civil Code does not specify the relevant criteria.The judicial interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court includes the liquidated damages for loan defaults in the unified calculation of interest rates,and does not specify which fees are included for fees.Whether the scope of unified regulation of interest rates includes all liquidated damages and related fees,the Civil Code does not stipulate this,whether the judicial interpretation of the unified regulation of interest rates is reasonable,and what fees should be included is unknown.The controversy and ambiguity of legislation have led to a lack of uniform basis and standards for judicial adjudication,resulting in different judgments in similar cases.Whether from the perspective of economic development or social responsibility,usurious lending is the target that the whole society should crack down on,and as a financial institution that undertakes the function of financial integration of the whole society,it is even more necessary to reduce interest rates and support economic development.Combining the theory of equality in law and economics,as well as the theory related to interest rate control,curbing usurious lending by regulating financial lending interest rates is an effective means to maintain the standardized operation of the lending market.At the legislative level,it is necessary to adjust the regulatory model of financial lending interest rates,first of all,the financial lending interest rate should be included in the scope of the upper limit;secondly,based on the different risks brought about by different loan purposes and in order to promote consumption,different upper limit interest rates should be set for different types of loans for different purposes,and a lower upper limit should be set for consumer loan interest rates;finally,the scope of the composition of hidden interest rates should be distinguished,given that the consequences of default damages are different and the nature of interest rates is different,Fees paid to intermediaries are another legal relationship and should not be uniformly included in the scope of interest rates.