Still got 40,000 yuan in compensation? The name "anti-collection" is actually extortion. The money owed to Alipay and Paipaidai does not need to be repaid.
I owed a small loan of 7,000 yuan. Thanks to the operation of the "anti-collector", not only did I not have to pay back a penny, but the loan company also compensated me 40,000 yuan. Recently, reporters learned about this case from the Shanghai Hongkou District People's Court. Both the debtor and the "anti-collector" in this case were sentenced for extortion.
At the beginning of 2023, Miao Moumou saw an advertisement posted by Luo Mou in a WeChat group, claiming that it could "help solve financial services such as arrears, loan suspension, collection, etc." He was immediately moved, so he took the initiative to add Luo Mou as a WeChat friend. He entrusted Luo to handle his Alipay debt and promised to give him a benefit fee, and Luo also successfully completed the transaction.
Seeing that Luo was indeed able to "get it done", Miao thought that he had a loan of 7,000 yuan, which was being repeatedly collected by Shanghai Paipaidai Financial Information Services Co., Ltd. The other party even pretended to be a lawyer or a community worker, and contacted Family members and other means for collection. So in June 2023, Miao Moumou contacted Luo Mou again, hoping that Luo Mou could help solve the problem of overdue loans that had been repeatedly collected, and Luo Mou immediately introduced this anti-collection business to Xu Mou, who He also contacted Tang Moumou to specifically handle the issue of overdue loan collection.
In addition to wanting to solve the loan collection problem, the four of them together thought about whether they could ask for compensation through complaints, which would not only teach the Paipai Loan Company a lesson, but also make a small fortune.
Subsequently, Tang Moumou took Miao Moumou's phone card and bank card, pretended to be Miao Moumou himself to answer the collection call from the Paipai Loan Company, recorded and wrote a letter of complaint, signed by Miao Moumou, and then submitted it to the Shanghai Complaints and Complaints Bureau, etc. Several units sent complaints and recording materials respectively. Forced by the supervision of the regulatory authorities, Paipaidai Company approached Tang Moumou for mediation and negotiation. Tang Moumou took the opportunity to say that if he wanted to withdraw the complaint, the company would need to compensate 40,000 yuan and waive a loan of more than 7,000 yuan. Due to the pressure of complaints, the Paipaidai company could only transfer 40,000 yuan to Miao Moumou's account and exempt the loan debt. After receiving the money, Miao Moumou, Luo Moumou and other four people divided the stolen goods proportionally.
On October 24, 2023, the four people were arrested by public security officers. After arriving at the case, they truthfully confessed the above facts and withdrew all the stolen money. After trial, the Hongkou Court held that in this case, the defendant Miao Moumou had other ideas because of the debt collection, hoping to entrust others to relieve debts or even make illegal profits, and Luo Moumou and others took this opportunity By instigating Miao Moumou to make malicious complaints, maliciously evade debts, and even blackmail them. The four people formed a gang and, for the purpose of illegal possession, extorted 40,000 yuan in compensation and exempted more than 7,000 yuan in debt. Their actions constituted the crime of extortion. This case was a joint crime. The four defendants truthfully confessed their crimes after arriving at the case, and they were able to voluntarily plead guilty and accept punishment, return all stolen money, and truly showed remorse. They could all be given lighter punishments, lenient punishments, and suspended sentences depending on the circumstances.
Based on the above circumstances, the Hongkou Court sentenced the defendants Miao, Luo, Xu, and Tang to the crime of extortion, and each was sentenced to 3 years in prison, suspended for 3 years, and fined.
Hongkou Court Judge Sun Linna pointed out that in this case, Paipaidai Company, as a collection unit, pretended to be a lawyer and threatened Miao that he would bear legal responsibility, pretended to be a community worker and threatened Miao that he would auction off his property to repay the debt, and contacted Miao's emergency contact by phone. Spreading debt information, etc., and his malicious collection methods are at fault, so the defendant needs to be given a lighter punishment. However, the purpose of "anti-collection" by Miao Moumou and four others was not simple. They not only want to protect their rights and resist malicious collection, but also want to completely eliminate the debt, and even extort money and make a small fortune, with the purpose of illegal possession. Paipaidai Company's malicious collection cannot conceal the defendant's extortionist nature.
The court reminded that debt collectors should use formal, reasonable and legal methods to collect debts. If the debtor repeatedly fails to repay the debt, it can use legal channels to preserve property and use litigation procedures to safeguard rights. If the debtee encounters malicious debt collection, he can safeguard his rights through formal channels and make a normal recording of the malicious debt collection before handing it over to the relevant department. The "Administrative Measures for Consumer Finance Companies" that will be implemented on April 18, 2024 stipulates that collectors should establish a personal information protection mechanism, establish an overdue loan collection management system, and implement the responsibilities of collection management entities. It not only clarifies the norms of collection behavior, but also provides The debtor is provided with more favorable legal protection and further safeguards fairness and justice in the financial market.
