The so-called loan fraud means that borrowers or insiders of credit institutions cheat loans from credit institutions by fabricating facts and concealing the truth. With the economic downturn and intensified competition in the industry, various cases of fraudulent loans have emerged one after another. Through some typical cases of fraudulent loans, I hope to give you some inspiration and reference to identify fraudulent loans.

Case 1—— Guangxi Yulin loan officer was arrested for defrauding 8 million loans in the name of 143 villagers.

Main problems: moral hazard of employees and false loans.

Recently, many media reported that the loan officer of a financial institution in Luchuan County, Yulin City, Guangxi used the name of 143 villagers to defraud the financial institution of more than 8 million yuan in loans for their own use. Recently, the Luchuan County Procuratorate approved the arrest of the suspect on suspicion of defrauding loans. According to media reports, the suspect Zhongmou lost money because of his participation in the Mark Six lottery. In order to raise money and continue to participate in gambling, he had a bad idea of defrauding loans. During the two years from 20 13 to 20 15, Zhongmou defrauded the villagers to sign the loan procedures they didn't want, and opened the villagers' account privately for their own collection.

Without the villagers' knowledge, Zhongmou applied for a loan in the name of the villagers and used it for his own gambling by using the materials such as the ID card and the copy of the household registration book retained by the villagers when handling the loan. Subsequently, some villagers found that the deposits were inexplicably allocated by financial institutions, and even owed hundreds of thousands of money. At this point, the fact that Zhong defrauded the loan surfaced.

According to media reports, as of February 20 16, Zhongmou used 143 villagers to defraud loans of more than 8 million yuan, a small part of which was used to repay the defrauded loans.

Case 2- Cousins conspired to defraud the bank of 600,000 yuan.

The main problems are employee moral hazard and internal and external collusion.

2065438+February 2005, the person in charge of a bank in Yuncheng reported to the Economic Investigation Brigade of Yuncheng County Public Security Bureau that Xu Moumou, the person in charge of his subordinate branch, had not recovered the loan of more than 600,000 yuan so far, and was suspected of illegal lending, requesting to file a case for investigation. After receiving the report, the Economic Investigation Brigade quickly set up a task force to conduct an investigation, and found that Xu used his position convenience and the right to approve and issue loans to manipulate and illegally issue loans of more than 600,000 yuan with his cousin Li, all of which were used for the business operation of his partnership with his cousin Li. Due to poor business management, all the loans of more than 600,000 yuan went to Shui Piao. On March 20 15, Xu was arrested and brought to justice, and in the same year 10, Xu was sentenced by the court. After the incident, Li Moumou has been absconding from other places, and the public security organs have repeatedly pursued it unsuccessfully. On April 15, the police investigated by the task force got reliable information and found its trail in Zhengzhou, Henan. On April 16, the task force immediately rushed to Zhengzhou, and with the cooperation of the local police, Li was arrested in a hotel. After the trial, Li truthfully confessed the facts of the crime.

After investigation, in 20 14, Li discussed with his cousin Xu and took advantage of Xu's convenience in working in the bank to borrow a sum of money to do business. After the two conspired, Li Moumou served as the legal person of the company, and then Li Moumou applied for it, and found Zhang Moumou, Li Moumou, Liu Mou and other relatives and friends as guarantees, and lent more than 600,000 yuan for business operation in three times. As a result, due to poor management, they not only failed to make money, but even lost all fund-raising. At present, Li has been under criminal detention and the case is under further investigation.

Case 3- Yantai sea cucumber farmers were detained for defrauding 26 million yuan to expand their business scale.

Problems involved in false information and loan collection

According to news reports, Wang, a sea cucumber farmer in Penglai, Yantai, was criminally detained by the police in Yantai Development Zone on March 6 this year for defrauding loans. Wang deals in sea cucumber business. The initial business was excellent and needed a lot of money to expand the scale of operation. In order to obtain a bank loan, Wang defrauded the bank loan by providing false materials and making false statements, reaching 26 million yuan.

Wang is a sea cucumber farmer in Yantai. He has earned some money in cultivating sea cucumbers in recent years and wants to carry out large-scale farming in Fujian waters. Lacking investment funds, he thought of borrowing money from the bank. Just at this time, a joint-stock bank in Yantai launched a loan business for aquaculture farmers. The bank's loan business is "three-three joint guarantee", that is, three eligible entities can act as guarantors for each other. After approval, the three parties can lend 3 million yuan respectively, and after the loan is successful, the three parties can get a total of 9 million yuan.

Wang thinks that this business of the bank can just solve his urgent need, but compared with the conditions, if he wants to borrow money, he lacks a guarantor, so Wang thinks of his relatives at home.

Xiao Wang used his usual WeChat to find relatives and asked them to sign the relevant documents and press their fingerprints. In this way, he forged the documents needed for the loan. Unexpectedly, these false materials of Xiao Wang passed the bank review and the loan was successfully approved.

Wang got three groups of loans in the form of "three-three joint guarantee", with two groups of 9 million yuan and one group of 8 million yuan, totaling 26 million yuan. Wang used a lot of money to expand the scale and opened a farm in the southern waters.

However, since 20 13, the participation of sea cucumber industry has been in a continuous downturn, and Wang's sea cucumber breeding and processing business has also become stormy.

After getting a loan from the bank, Xiao Wang was able to repay the loan on schedule in previous years, but since the second half of 20 14, Xiao Wang has been unable to repay the bank loan. In desperation, the bank reported the case to the police in the development zone. After the police accepted it, through investigation, it was found that many loan customers had false information in the information Wang used to apply for a loan, and the funds were collected and used. Relevant personnel are suspected of defrauding loans.

On March 201June 7/KLOC-0, the Development Zone Branch decided to issue a criminal detention certificate to the main suspect Wang, and arrested him at the residence of the suspect Wang the next day. At present, Wang may be investigated for criminal responsibility for providing false information to defraud loans.

Case 4- A man dreams of defrauding a bank for a luxury car and is finally sentenced for contract fraud.

The main problem is the lack of repayment ability, providing false real estate licenses and income certificates.

According to news reports, Xiao Liu of Daqing bought a car because he watched his buddies around him. In order to save face, knowing that he was unable to repay, he signed a special installment payment contract for credit card cars with a bank through a friend's introduction. In the process of signing the contract, Xiao Liu provided false real estate license and income certificate, defrauded the guarantee provided by a financing guarantee limited liability company, and obtained nearly 200,000 yuan from the bank for car purchase.

Because Xiao Liu has not received repayment for several consecutive periods, and after investigation, the car bought by Xiao Liu is also unknown, so the bank chose to call the police. Xiao Liu was subsequently arrested by the public security organs. In the end, after hearing by the Longfeng District Court, Xiao Liu believed that when signing a contract with a bank, he provided false credit certificates and concealed the truth, which constituted the crime of contract fraud. He was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment 1 1 month and fined 10000 yuan.

Case 5- Three men in Weifang were arrested for forging property and defrauding 2.7 million yuan by refusing to return it.

False driving license, real estate license, land certificate and process loopholes involve problems.

Fu, Ma and Zhang have been engaged in stainless steel business for 20 1 1 year in Linqu County, Weifang City, Shandong Province. A man named Fu Moumou found them and asked them if they needed a loan, saying that he had a "way" to help them go through the formalities. Since there is no property to mortgage, the three forged false vehicle driving license, real estate license, land certificate and other property certificates and handed them to Fu Moumou, asking him to apply for a loan.

Fu Moumou once worked in the credit department of a bank. He is very familiar with the loan process, knows several acquaintances in the industry, and knows where the loopholes in bank control are. The three handed over the fake real estate license to Fu Moumou, and each person also paid him an intermediary fee of 20,000 yuan. Fu Moumou helped Zhang borrow 700,000 yuan, helped Zhang and Ma borrow 6,543.8+0,000 yuan, with a term of 654.38+0 years, and agreed with them to repay 700,000 yuan.

After successfully defrauding the loan, Fu, Ma and Zhang used part of the funds for their own business and the rest for consumption. After the loan, the bank repeatedly asked the three people to repay, but the three refused to repay. After the judgment of the Kuiwen District People's Court in Weifang City, the three people still refused to repay the money, and there was no property available for execution in the three people. On June 5438+ 10 this year, the Economic Investigation Brigade of Kuiwen County Public Security Bureau filed a case for investigation after receiving a report from the bank, and arrested Fu and Ma, recovering economic losses of 460,000 yuan for the bank.

At present, Fu and Ma have been released on bail pending trial for allegedly defrauding loans, and Zhang is listed as an online pursuit target.

Case 6-The woman forged 30 false certificates to defraud 7.2 million yuan, and was finally arrested after hiding for two years.

The main problem is to provide false certificates.

Liu ran an automobile trading company in Quanzhou on 20 12 and applied for three bank acceptance bills of 7.2 million yuan from the bank. The repayment date of each bill is about half a month. When the repayment date came, she was unable to repay.

So, she found a guarantee company and borrowed money from the guarantee company to the bank. Borrow another sum of money from the bank and return it to the guarantee company that has the ability to repay on time. When this action went to the second round, the bank stopped lending. Without the money lent by the bank, it is impossible to borrow money from the guarantee company.

She found 30 motor vehicle certificates to mortgage the guarantee company and continued to repay the loan to the bank. At the same time, she borrowed 400,000 yuan and 600,000 yuan from two friends in the same way. After that, she disappeared.

The person who couldn't find her, the personnel of the guarantee company took out 30 mortgaged motor vehicle certificates and found them to be fake. After calling the police, the police confirmed that the certificate was forged and listed her as a 20 13 fugitive.

After hiding for two years, Liu was arrested by the public security organs a few days ago. At present, he has been arrested by the procuratorate and is ready to be transferred for prosecution.

Case 7- Joint "Inside Ghost" Loan Fraud Case

The main problems are internal and external collusion and false information.

In August 2003, Feng Mingchang, a well-known private entrepreneur in Foshan, Guangdong Province, was tried by the judicial authorities for alleged financial fraud. But in February 2003, he was just elected as one of the 40 "best private entrepreneurs" in Guangdong Province.

Since then, the plates of Feng Group, which has the reputation of "the largest plywood production base in Asia", have been discontinued due to the break of the capital chain. Huaguang once had 1 10,000 employees, with an annual output value of 2 billion yuan.

In June165438+1October of the same year, the "806" task force composed of the central authorities and relevant departments of Guangdong Province was stationed in Nanhai District, Foshan City. After the Spring Festival in 2004, Feng Mingchang was formally detained for investigation.

In June, 2004, Li Jinhua, Auditor-General of the National Audit Office, disclosed in the audit report submitted to the 10th meeting of the 10th the NPC Standing Committee that Feng Mou, a private entrepreneur in Foshan, Guangdong Province, used 65,438+03 affiliated enterprises under his control to fabricate false financial statements, and colluded with insiders of the bank to obtain a loan of 7,426,543,800 yuan from Nanhai Branch of China Industrial and Commercial Bank.

It is reported that as of the audit, the balance was 65.438+92.9 million yuan. A large number of loans were transferred to personal savings accounts or directly withdrawn, and some were even remitted abroad through illegal channels. After preliminary verification, the loss of bank loans exceeded 654.38 billion yuan.

In the end, Feng Mingchang, Ye Jiasheng, former vice president of Guangdong Branch of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Lin Yuxing, former president of Nanhai Branch, and Lin Junjiang, former president of Foshan Branch were all severely punished.

Case 8—— The amount involved in the Baotou loan fraud case of Agricultural Bank of China1.1.00 billion yuan.

The main problems are internal and external collusion and false information.

In March, 2005, China Banking Regulatory Commission reported a major case of suspected illegal operation of Agricultural Bank of China: in less than a year, bank staff colluded with credit cooperatives and social criminals to defraud the bank of more than RMB 654.38+0. 1 billion by misappropriating funds and falsely issuing large deposit certificates.

In 2004, Inner Mongolia Banking Regulatory Bureau organized an on-site inspection of secured loans of banking financial institutions under the unified arrangement of CBRC. During the on-site inspection of Baotou Branch of Agricultural Bank of China, Baotou Banking Supervision Branch found that when Huitong Sub-branch and Donghe Sub-branch handled personal pledge loans and discounts, individual staff colluded with credit cooperatives and social criminals to defraud bank loans.

The inspection found that from July 2, 2003 to June 4, 2004, the Agricultural Bank of China, together with the staff of Shifu East Road Sub-branch and Donghe Sub-branch, and some staff of rural credit cooperatives under the jurisdiction of Damaoqi Rural Credit Cooperative Union of Baotou City colluded with social personnel to commit crimes, misappropriating interbank funds, falsely issuing large deposit certificates, handling fake pledge loans, and discounting in violation of regulations, and extorting bank credit funds at a high profit. It has been identified that 98 funds are involved, amounting to.

Case 9: A branch of a state-owned bank was defrauded of 26 million yuan by two shell companies.

The main problems are employee dereliction of duty and shell companies.

Conghua Sub-branch of a state-owned bank was defrauded by two shell companies in Guangzhou for a total loan of 26 million yuan. In 20 15, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court sentenced the vice president of the branch, the manager of the financial business sub-center and two loan officers for dereliction of duty, and was sentenced to criminal responsibility ranging from 9 months to 3 years in 1 year.

During June, 20 1 1, Li (female), then account manager (i.e. loan officer) of Conghua Sub-branch of a state-owned bank, did not conduct strict on-the-spot investigation to verify the actual operation of the borrowing company and issue an investigation report when handling the loan business of Guangzhou Daxiang Software Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Daxiang Company"), so the pre-loan investigation became a mere formality and the post-loan supervision was lax. However, Kuang, the manager of the financial business sub-center of small enterprises, and the vice president in charge of credit business did not investigate and verify in depth and agreed to confirm, which led to the bank being defrauded by Zhang and others using Daxiang Company for 20 million yuan. At the time of the incident, the bank lost nearly 6.5438+0.6 million yuan, resulting in non-performing loans.

Almost at the same time, another account manager, Wu Mou, handled the loan business of Guangzhou Peng Yi Trading Company (hereinafter referred to as "Peng Yi Company") from 20654381October+0165438+February. There was also no on-the-spot investigation to verify the actual operation of the borrowing company and issue an investigation report, resulting in the bank being defrauded by Zhang and others using the company to obtain a loan of 6 million yuan, and the loss was 4.23 million yuan at the time of the incident.

There is a simple reason. The loan officer didn't make a detailed investigation, because the business was introduced by the leader, and the account manager Li confessed that Daxiang Company was introduced by Kuang, the manager of the Small Business Finance Sub-center. They conducted a field inspection together and found that the address did not match the business license. The other party explained that they had just moved to a new address. Li also confessed that because the other party provided the company statement and bank flow, she verified the actual operation of the company by default. When Ding signed it, Li didn't compare it carefully.

Wu Mou, a loan officer, confessed that Peng Yi Company was introduced by Chen Mou, the vice president, and he didn't make a field trip. When tracking the loan destination and the lender's post-loan business premises, he did not go to the scene to check, but only asked the lender to send him relevant information. Chen Mou, the vice president, admitted that he didn't know whether the bank employees had visited the two companies on the spot before the loan. He is responsible for being cheated of bank loans because he failed to know the real situation of these loan companies.

Case 10: Shandong No.7 Company defrauded nearly 400 million yuan of bills of exchange through trade financing.

The main problem is virtual trade.

20 14 In August, the Intermediate People's Court of Binzhou City, Shandong Province decided a case of fraudulent acceptance of bills of exchange in the second instance. Guo is a native of Boxing County, Binzhou City, Shandong Province. He and his wife established seven affiliated enterprises, including Zibo Yongchi Automobile Sales Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Yongchi Automobile") and Shandong Hongchangda Automobile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Hongchangda Automobile"), and defrauded ICBC, Shang Qi Bank, Shandong Boxing Rural Cooperative Bank and Agricultural Bank of a total of 396.5438 billion yuan through false purchase and sale contracts between affiliated enterprises.

After Guo and others were prosecuted, in 20 13 years, the Boxing County People's Court sentenced the above seven companies and Guo, of which Guo was sentenced to 4 years in prison and fined 654.38+10,000 yuan. After the judgment of the first instance, Guo refused to accept the appeal. One of the reasons is that financial institutions should know that both parties to the sales contract are affiliated companies and whether the sales contract is true or not. He himself did not use fraudulent means to obtain the acceptance of the bill. On August 7, 20 14, Binzhou Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment in the second instance.

Guo used the above seven companies to sign false purchase and sale contracts to defraud the bank acceptance bill 1 1 times, with a total amount of 39 1 10,000 yuan and an exposed part of1823 million yuan. Among them, ICBC Binzhou Binyin Sub-branch has 2 acceptance bills, with a total amount of 40 million yuan and an exposure of 6,543,800 yuan; Boxing Sub-branch of Bank of Shang Qi with an amount of150,000 yuan and an exposure of 7.5 million yuan; Pangjia Sub-branch of rural cooperative bank has a total amount of 36 million yuan and an exposure of 6.5438+0.08 million yuan; The Bincheng Sub-branch of the Agricultural Bank of China handled 6 acceptance bills, with a total amount of 300 million yuan and an exposure of 65,438+46 million.

If the late acceptance exposure fails to repay after the expiration, the guarantee enterprise will repay it on its behalf. Among the 30 million yuan previously exposed, the guarantee company paid 6.5438+million yuan, and after the Agricultural Bank of China advanced 20 million yuan, it filed a lawsuit against Hongchangda Automobile. As of July 20 14 and 14, the Agricultural Bank of China has recovered15510,000 yuan from Hongchangda Automobile and received 12 semi-trailer tankers, which should not cause actual losses.

The method used by Guo and others is not clever, that is, the affiliated enterprises "turn their left hands upside down" and sign false sales contracts. Take the Agricultural Bank of China with the largest amount as an example. 2012 On March 20th, Guo forged the Purchase and Sale Contract between Hongchangda Automobile Company and Yongchi Automobile Company in the name of Hongchangda Automobile Company, and applied to Bincheng Sub-branch of Agricultural Bank of China for an acceptance bill of 60 million yuan, with a deposit of 30 million yuan, an exposure of 30 million yuan and a maturity date of 2,065,438. Only one day later, that is, March 2, 20 12 1 day, Guo handled an acceptance bill of 80 million yuan in Bincheng Sub-branch by the same means again, and paid a deposit of 40 million yuan and an exposure of 40 million yuan.

In addition, the seven companies actually controlled by Guo Can can only see some clues from their names, and many companies with the same name (such as "Hongchangda") may have been related before.

Case11-The first case of Zhejiang loan fraud: the case of "Yin-Yang account" loan fraud.

The main problems are shell companies and yin-yang accounts.

On February 23, 2006, at 65438, a branch of Bank of Communications reported to Hangzhou Public Security Bureau that He Zhijun, the legal representative of Zhejiang Zhijun Holding Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhijun Company), was suspected of defrauding the bank of hundreds of millions of yuan in loans and had fled abroad, requesting the public security organ to file a case for investigation. With the investigation of public security organs, a shocking case gradually surfaced.

From 2003 to August 2006, more than 65.438 million subsidiaries with registered capital exceeding10 million yuan suddenly appeared in Zhijun Company. The bosses of subsidiaries are all employees of the company, and some are even canteen chefs. This abnormal phenomenon has already attracted the attention of public security organs. After receiving the report, on June 5438+1October 5, 2007, Hangzhou Public Security Bureau decided to file an investigation on the alleged contract fraud cases of Zhijun Company and He Zhijun. On April 23rd, 2007, the Hangzhou Procuratorate approved the arrest of He Zhijun who was at large.

The procuratorate alleges that from 1995 to the time of the crime, He Zhijun instructed Wang Chengfu, Zang Zuozhi and others to set up more than 140 affiliated companies all over the country, the so-called "Zhijun Department", but these companies registered their subordinates, relatives and friends who did not actually contribute or participate in business decisions as "nominal" shareholders or legal representatives when handling industrial and commercial registration.

According to the survey, most Zhijun enterprises have two sets of report systems. Provide a set of real reporting system for industry and commerce and taxation, called account A; Another set of false reporting system is provided to banks for loans, which is called account B. This set of account B inflated assets, sales revenue, net profit and sales cost, and reduced long-term investment. These two sets of "yin-yang accounts" have been used for several years, and they have been tried and tested repeatedly in the process of illegal loan fraud.

From the first half of 2003 to August 2006, He Zhijun instructed the staff of Junzhi Department to provide copies of revised audit reports, fabricate false financial statements, forge industrial products purchase and sale contracts, provide false copies of special invoices for value-added tax and other materials, and guaranteed each other in the names of "empty shell" Junzhi Department West Asia Company, Kailida Company, CIMC Company, Jiuyuan Company, Chen Xing Company and Antai Company, and defrauded them successively.

Case 12: The largest bank in Beijing defrauded loans: the executives of rural commercial banks colluded inside and outside, and shell companies defrauded loans of 700 million yuan.

The main problems are shell companies and internal and external collusion.

On 2012 10 June10, the Beijing Higher People's Court sentenced the largest bank loan fraud case in this city, and finally sentenced eight senior executives of the former Beijing Rural Commercial Bank, including five branch presidents and vice presidents, including Tian Jun, the head of the former branch of the central business district of the bank. Among them, Tian Jun was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment, Hu Yi, the chairman of Beijing Huading Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd., was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the persons involved were sentenced to 3 years to 16 years' imprisonment.

It is reported that eight senior executives of Beijing Rural Commercial Bank, together with Hu Yi and his employees, defrauded 708 million yuan from the bank by fictional mortgage procedures for second-hand houses and loan procedures for small businesses.

The court found that from February 2007 to February 2008, Hu Yi and Li Jingjing, directors of Huading Guarantee Company, defrauded 255 loans from Dajiaoting Sub-branch and shibalidian Sub-branch of Rural Commercial Bank, amounting to more than 447 million yuan. In addition, Hu Yi and others used the names of 45 companies to make up excuses that companies needed liquidity, and adopted the way of mutual guarantee. From September 2008 to February 2009, they defrauded 45 loans from shibalidian Sub-branch, amounting to more than 266,543.8 billion yuan. As of the time of the incident, a total economic loss of more than 360 million yuan was caused.

The case surfaced in September, 2008. When Zhao, an employee of the Personal Finance Department of Bank of Communications, was preparing to buy a car with a loan, he accidentally found that he had a second-hand house loan of 2 million yuan in shibalidian Branch of Beijing Rural Commercial Bank. Coincidentally, during the same period, when Wei Mou, an employee of CCB, was preparing to borrow money to buy a house, he also found himself "mortgaged" in Beijing Rural Commercial Bank and immediately called the police. Faced with such a strange thing, after complaining to the head office of Beijing Rural Commercial Bank, they directly reported the matter to the Beijing Banking Regulatory Bureau.

Then, on February 27th, 2009, Hu Yi's ex-wife Li Jingjing went to the business department of a rural commercial bank to apply for a credit card in order to withdraw a loan from a shell company. At this time, the careful bank teller found that the official seal of this loan enterprise, which was established many years ago, was actually newly built and there was no inkpad at all. After careful investigation, the bank found that the loan withdrawal account actually involved many small business loans, so it called the police.

At the end of March 2009, Beijing Rural Commercial Bank was exposed by a shocking case of defrauding 460 million yuan. At that time, eight responsible persons, including Tian Jun, president of the central branch of the bank, were suspected of colluding to defraud loans and were put on file for investigation by judicial organs. An Dong, the legal representative of Huading Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd., and Hu Yi, the actual controller who provided guarantee for the loan, were also investigated by the judicial authorities and taken compulsory measures.

On June 20 10, Beijing Banking Regulatory Bureau confirmed that Jin, former president of Beijing Rural Commercial Bank, and Jiang Chao, former vice president, were suspended, and Tian Jun, former president of Central Business District Branch, was also removed from administrative and party posts.

20 10 At the beginning of August, Hu Yi, the chairman of Beijing Huading Credit Guarantee Company, was tried in Beijing No.2 Intermediate People's Court together with eight bank cadres who defrauded loans. It is reported that there were 18 defendants in the case at that time, among which the presidents and vice presidents of Beijing Rural Commercial Bank CBD Branch, shibalidian Branch and Dajiaoting Branch were accused of taking bribes totaling nearly 10 million yuan. The trial is expected to last five days. After the incident, only half of the 708 million yuan defrauded was recovered.

The enlightenment of the above cases

The above-mentioned bloody loan fraud cases have sounded the alarm for China's credit institutions. The author believes that the above cases give us the following enlightenment:

Revelation 1: The main forms of fraudulent loans

Looking at the above-mentioned 12 cases, the forms of fraudulent loans mainly include: (1) providing false information, including false identity card, real estate license, false driving license, false land certificate, false qualification certificate, false income certificate and false financial information. ; (2) False trade financing and fictitious trade. In such cases, there are often Yin-Yang companies and affiliated companies, as reflected in case 10; (3) using shell companies to defraud loans, such as case 9, case 1 1, case12; (4) Employee moral hazard, employee dereliction of duty and internal and external collusion. In the process of borrowers using false information, false trade and shell companies to defraud loans, some cases of fraudulent loans are related to internal and external collusion and employee dereliction of duty.

Enlightenment 2: Credit institutions need to optimize their own governance structure.

A good corporate governance institution is the cornerstone of the long-term and stable development of credit reporting institutions. At present, China's commercial banks have basically established a risk management system. However, due to various reasons, commercial banks are often restricted by the administrative structure, and leaders sometimes intervene in loans. It is suggested that commercial banks set up a risk management department centered on business processes, which is directly responsible to the risk management committee. Through the design of this system, an effective balance mechanism can be formed to prevent risks.

Enlightenment 3: Establish a risk management system with business processes as the core.

Credit institutions should establish a credit risk management system with business processes as the core on the basis of the Guidelines for Credit Granting of Commercial Banks and other documents, combined with their own conditions. Risk management is a management process, including determining, measuring, evaluating and formulating methods, processes and systems to deal with risks, with the aim of minimizing avoidable risks and minimizing costs and losses. A complete credit risk management system includes four links, namely, credit risk identification, credit risk evaluation, credit risk control and credit risk management evaluation.