The Shanghai Higher People's Court held a press conference on August 28th, and reported the trial of four cases of "routine loan". According to the analysis of the Shanghai Higher People's Court, the development and spread of the crime of "routine loan" not only directly infringes on the legitimate property rights and interests of the victims, but also easily induces other crimes by means of violence, threats and false litigation. , and even caused the victims to drop out of school, commit suicide, sell houses and pay off debts and other serious consequences, bringing a series of social problems.

Routine loan is different from ordinary usury.

According to Duan Shouliang's analysis, "routine loan" and usury have different behavioral purposes. The "borrowing" of "routine loan" is an excuse for the defendant to embezzle the victim's property, so "routine loan" is the fact that the victim's property is illegally occupied in the name of "borrowing". The usurer wants the borrower to pay high interest and return the principal as agreed in order to obtain high interest.

The difference in means and methods is also the difference between "routine loan" and usury. According to Duan Shouliang, the differences in means and methods are mainly reflected in three aspects. First, the name of inflated amount is different. The inflated amount in "routine loan" generally appears in the name of guarantee or similar, and the amount other than the principal in usury is often set in the name of interest; Secondly, borrowers have different subjective understandings of the amount other than the principal. The borrower (victim) of "routine loan" is often told that the inflated part does not need to be returned if the repayment is normal, so subjectively, the inflated part does not need to be returned, while the borrower of usury knows that the high-interest part other than the principal needs to be returned when signing the contract. The third difference is that lenders have different attitudes towards "default". In order to achieve the purpose of inflating the amount, criminals in "routine loans" often make the victims unable to repay within the agreed time limit and have to "default" by not answering the phone or "disappearing", while the lenders of usury hope that the borrowers will repay the principal and interest as soon as possible.

Another difference between "routine loan" and usury is that the objects of infringement are different. According to Duan Shouliang's analysis, "routine loan" infringes on many objects and does great harm to society. From tricking or forcing the victim to sign a contract to violent debt collection and false litigation, it not only infringes on the victim's property rights and personal rights, but also endangers public order, undermines financial management order, and even challenges judicial authority, seriously damaging judicial justice. Usury mainly undermines the order of financial management.

Different legal consequences are also the difference between "routine loan" and usury. "Routine loan" is essentially an illegal and criminal act, and the principal and interest of the loan are not protected by law. Usury embodies the autonomy of both borrowers and borrowers, and the loan itself and the interest within a certain range are protected by law. According to "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Private Lending Cases", the interest rate agreed by both borrowers and lenders exceeds the annual interest rate of 36%, and the agreement on the excess interest is invalid, that is, the principal and statutory interest of usury are protected by law, while the excess interest is not protected by law.