我国P2P网络借贷平台的法律性质

P2P网络借贷是从英美传入我国的一种新型借贷形态,属于“互联网金融”模式之一.由于尚无准入门槛、行业标准及监管机构,国内P2P网络借贷近年接连爆发问题,损害消费者权益,扰乱金融秩序,亟待政策法规出台以整顿行业乱象.P2P网络借贷平台的基本性质是“居间”,同时,由于其业务具有金融属性,应将其纳入金融机构范畴.鉴于我国既有金融机构类型均不符合P2P网贷平台的特征,建议增加“金融服务机构”一类以定位P2P网络借贷平台,并规定准入、风险、监管等方面的特殊要求.     

P2P网贷的风险控制:金融分析与模式构建

互联网金融P2P模式快速发展的同时,也触发了"金融脱管",即脱离了传统银行完善的风险管控体系,网贷平台出现了"蒸发"、提现困难和非法洗钱等严重危害消费者利益和金融稳定的问题。以互联网金融P2P网贷平台的四种发展模式为基础,可以发现P2P运作过程中出现的道德风险、项目风险、模式风险和技术风险等因素。P2G是规避风险的P2P创新版模式,P2G具有政府信用背书、回收速度快、项目筛选严格和信息透明的优点,使其能够成为"地方投资新蓝海"。P2G运行需要遵从的原则包括:资金流向透明、项目运行透明、交易信息透明和交易环境透明。     

P2P借贷中的信息共享与法律规制

P2P借贷行业处于“无准入门槛、无行业标准、无监管机构”的“三无”状态,相关法律规范模糊,本文探讨信息共享对规范P2P借贷服务的重要性,通过明确P2P借贷平台的法律地位与身份,确定P2P借贷平台的责任与义务,平衡信息隐私权与知情权的冲突及制定行业自律对策,防范借贷风险,保护投资者利益,促进P2P平台规范健康发展.     

P2P网络借贷在我国发展面临的法律风险及其规制

近年来我国的P2P网络借贷行业发展迅猛，但由于行业准入门槛低，我国信用体系不健全，相关法律法规及监管缺失等原因，使该行业的发展逐渐背离了P2P网络借贷最初的形态，衍生出很多各不相同的经营模式。随着其法律关系的日趋复杂，法律风险也在不断累积，金融监管部门有必要在风险控制的思路下，对P2P网络借贷平台进行适当的监管。建议从合理界定P2P网络借贷平台的法律性质，实行分类监管；尽快出台相关管理办法；完善信用认证体系；加强中间账户的监管；实行充分的信息披露；禁止平台提供融资性担保；加强行业自律和内控机制等方面对其法律风险加以规制。     

新形势下P2P网贷平台风险及应对——兼论“爆雷潮”后P2P平台的合规化发展

2017下半年起,P2P网络借贷平台领域频频出现"爆雷"事件,大量平台退出市场。"爆雷"现象反映出当前P2P网贷平台蕴含的各类犯罪风险以及问题平台向其他领域传导的风险。借款人失信、平台运营人运营不当、平台监管不足等因素共同导致了这些风险。随着P2P监管时代的到来,有必要正视以上风险和问题,完善金融领域相关立法,建立P2P网贷平台的风险防控机制,对平台实施股权和资金的双向穿透式监管,改善平台运营的市场环境,使P2P网贷平台回归信息中介地位,从而有效保护投资者利益。     

P2P平台犯罪司法实务研究

P2P平台犯罪涉案人员多、范围广、犯罪行为复杂,罪名和犯罪数额的认定存在诸多难点。司法实践具体认定时,应从P2P平台的运营模式出发,辨析行为人的犯罪本质,结合犯罪构成理论,合理确定犯罪主体,缩小共同犯罪的认定范围;以"数额+情节"为基础,综合考虑量刑;完善电子数据的收集,准确确定犯罪金额,以做到精准起诉,正确适用法律,不枉不纵。     

我国P2P网络借贷平台的合法性界定及法律监管

近年来,伴随着互联网的融通、资源的共事以及民间借贷市场的持续昌盛,P2P网络借贷平台飞速发展.从2007年第一个P2P网络借贷平台开始营业至今,作为一种新型的民间金融借贷平台,它有效改善了信贷市场供求的平衡.但在P2P网络借贷平台发展的过程中,由于缺乏监管框架和法律规制,P2P网络借贷平台逐渐呈现了跨界违规等旁逸斜出的发展,甚至是非法集资.本文将从我国P2P网络借贷平台在中国的兴起出发,以我国目前P2P网络借贷平台形成的经营模式为基础,分析探讨不同模式及模式下经营行为的合法性.此外,本文将梳理监管机构对行业的监管思路,评析发达国家的监管策略,并结合我国国情,从法律监管角度提出立法及监管建议.     

以P2P为例谈互联网金融借贷平台的法律问题

P2P网络借贷平台是一种基于互联网技术的小额贷款金融服务方式,是目前互联网金融中最具代表性的网络借贷平台.P2P网络借贷是一种新型的互联网金融模式,最先由国外引入我国,随着互联网金融的快速发展,在短短的时间内,我国P2P网络借贷平台凭借它自身的各方面优势,也得到了迅速的推广和发展,很大程度上弥补了我国传统融资市场的不足.本文通过对P2P网络借贷平台发展状况的相关介绍,具体分析了P2P网络借贷平台存在的实际问题和相应的法律问题.     

P2P网络借贷平台的法律规制研究

P2P网络借贷平台是民间借贷通过现代化的信息手段表现出的一种新形式,通过"在线交易"的模式能够更好的满足市场与民众对闲散资金进行利用的需求,使民间借贷最大限度的突破地域的限制,充分发挥其优势。但伴随着网络借贷的不断发展也产生了许多新问题,例如监管不完善、准入标准不明确、信用系统不完善等,本文在对网络借贷进行具体分析的基础之上,提出制定相关法理法规、完善监管体系、完善信用评级等相应的措施。     

P2P网络借贷的债权人保护问题

P2P网络借贷,即Peer-to-peer-lending。是一种依靠网络而形成的新型金融网络服务模式,在性质上属于小额民间借贷,其借贷方式比较灵活简单,从而提供了一种比较新式便捷的融资渠道,是现有银行金融服务的一种补充。2005年最先诞生于英国,我国是在2007年出现了第一个P2P的网络贷款平台——拍拍贷,随着P2P网络借贷在我国借贷市场中的发展,由于法律的缺失和监管的不利,暴露出许多损及贷款债权人利益的问题。本文结合我国P2P网络贷款的发展现状,重点分析P2P网络借贷债权人利益可能发生的法律风险,以及产生这些风险的原因,并就保护P2P网络借贷债权人的利益提出了自己的的制度设想与法律建议。     

我国警察体育述评

警察体育是警察警务工作且特殊育警实战训练方式。中国警察体育其目标定在警察体育与警务实战强警的塑造,以促进国家安全、社会稳定为依托,建设我国特色警察体育学科教育训练体系,警察训练理论与公安实践相结合,以提高警察战斗力,增强实战体能、掌握警察技能和警察战术应用,才是我国警察体育发展的主要内涵和价值观。     

P2P网络借贷诉讼的程序选择与适用

网络借贷由于具有交易手续便捷、贷款门槛低和操作灵活等特点,可以满足小微企业和个人的资金需求,提高社会闲散资金的利用率,因此在短时间内获得了较快的发展。按照P2P公司是否为贷款者提供担保为标准,可初步将所有的P2P网络贷款业务分成无抵押无担保、无抵押有担保以及有抵押有担保三种类型。在每一种类型中,由于民事主体间所涉法律关系的不同,导致了纷争发生后各主体维护自身权益方式的差异,决定了因P2P网络贷款引发的纷争所适用诉讼程序的迥然有异。     

遗传资源获取管制和惠益分享制度的立法模式选择

建立遗传资源的获取管制和惠益分享法律制度是我国目前环境立法中的一个重要课题,如何确定立法模式、规范遗传资源的获取途径及惠益分享条件和内容是难点.制定以专门立法为主、修改既有法律为辅的双层立法模式体系,并对其中的主管机构、遗传资源的获取步骤、惠益分享等制度提出具体安排,是解决这个问题的有益尝试.     

P2P服务提供者侵权责任问题研究

P2P技术自1999年诞生以来,由于其技术的本质特性不可避免地存在着许多法律上的问题,在学术界和司法界也存在过争议,这在很长一段时间使得人们对于P2P很难给予一个准确和公平的判断,从而导致对P2P服务提供者是否侵权以及如何认定侵权模棱两可。随着P2P技术的不断发展,人们对其技术的认识也日渐清晰,对其服务提供者承担责任问题也在司法实践中日渐成熟。结合中美典型案例分析P2P网络服务提供者在P2P技术的不同发展阶段承担侵权责任的问题,以期为将来P2P技术不断深入发展,司法实践中如何认定网络服务提供者的侵权责任提供借鉴。     

Funds sharing regulation in the context of the sharing economy: Understanding the logic of China's P2P lending regulation

“Sharing economy” is an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of digital platform-based activities that includes P2P lending and other forms of internet-based lending. The core aim of the sharing economy is to leverage the utilization of idle capacity. P2P lending can not only be used to leverage small amounts of money on the lender's side, but also be used to promote financial democracy and inclusion both on the lender and borrower's sides. P2P lending regulation, therefore, should place an emphasis on the utilization of dead money and promotion of financial democracy. This article scrutinizes the regulation of P2P lending in China. The existing regulatory system for P2P lending in China is built upon rules and regulations that have been designed solely with traditional brokers in mind. The article contends that the rigid rules placed on lending platforms limited their ability to maintain their roles as brokers and, in turn, heavily endangered the commercial sustainability of P2P platforms, thereby harming the sharing economy's openness and inclusivity. Additionally, the article argues that the fact that there is no limit on the amount a lender can invest poses a threat to the notions of leveraging idle money and financial inclusivity. The closed-ended P2P lending regime in China would cause some chilling effects to financial innovation in the P2P lending industry, and in a wider sense, the rising FinTech sector. Regulators in China need to cope with these challenges in a flexible but pragmatic manner, and particularly make use of the benefits the sharing economy may bring to the Chinese economy more broadly.     

行政许可标准的冲突及解决

行政许可标准,是对行政许可的法定条件、程序的解释和细化,在学理上属于许可的裁量基准,在功能上构成了许可获得的限制性条件,在形式上表现为一个自上而下的"阶梯式"规范体系。在相对集中行政许可视角下,市场准入过程往往是多个单一许可组成的复合许可过程,由此产生了不同部门间实体和程序标准的冲突现象。其发生的内在机理是行政权及许可背后的部门利益与家长主义规制,外在形式则表现为复数机关参与的异位规范间的冲突,性质上多属经验冲突而非逻辑冲突。由此,解决的路径在于:一是现行行政服务中心基础上不断修正的行政协调模式;二是具有共性效力之协调技术的提炼;三是通过基准制定和公布义务的规则治理。     

Smartphone platforms as privacy regulators

A series of recent developments highlight the increasingly important role of online platforms in impacting data privacy in today's digital economy. Revelations and parliamentary hearings about privacy violations in Facebook's app and service partner ecosystem, EU Court of Justice judgments on joint responsibility of platforms and platform users, and the rise of smartphone app ecosystems where app behaviour is governed by app distribution platforms and operating systems, all show that platform policies can make or break the enjoyment of privacy by users. In this article, we examine these developments and explore the question of what can and should be the role of platforms in protecting data privacy of their users.The article first distinguishes the different roles that platforms can have in ensuring respect for data privacy in relevant ecosystems. These roles include governing access to data, design of relevant interfaces and privacy mechanisms, setting of legal and technical standards, policing behaviour of the platform's (business) users, coordinating responsibility for privacy issues between platform users and the platform, and direct and indirect enforcement of a platform's data privacy standards on relevant players. At a higher level, platforms can also perform a role by translating different international regulatory requirements into platform policies, thereby facilitating compliance of apps in different regulatory environments. And in all of this, platforms are striking a balance between ensuring the respect for data privacy in data-driven environments on the one hand and optimization of the value and business opportunities connected to the platform and underlying data for users of the platform on the other hand.After this analysis of platforms’ roles in protecting privacy, the article turns to the question of what should this role be and how to better integrate platforms in the current legal frameworks for data privacy in Europe and the US. The article will argue for a compromise between direct regulation of platforms and mere self-regulation, in arguing that platforms should be required to make official disclosures about their privacy-related policies and practices for their respective ecosystems. These disclosures should include statements about relevant conditions for access to data and the platform, the platform's standards with respect to privacy and the way in which these standards ensure or facilitate compliance with existing legal frameworks by platform users, and statements with respect to the risks of abuse of different data sources and platform tools and actions taken to prevent or police such abuses. We argue that such integration of platforms in current regulatory frameworks is both feasible and desirable. It would make the role that platforms already have in practice more explicit. This would help to highlight best practices, create more accountability and could save significant regulatory and compliance resources in bringing relevant information together in one place. In addition, it could provide clarity for business users of platforms, who are now sometimes confronted with restrictive decisions by platforms in ways that lack transparency and oversight.     

A forensic examination of four popular cross‐platform file‐sharing apps with Wi‐Fi P2P

File‐sharing apps with Wi‐Fi hotspot or Wi‐Fi Direct functions become more popular. They can work on multiple platforms and allow users to transfer files in a concealed manner. However, when criminals use these apps in illegal activities, it becomes an important issue for investigators to find digital evidence on multiple platforms. At present, there are few studies on this topic, and most of them are limited to the single platform problem. In this paper, we propose a forensic examination method for four popular cross‐platform file‐sharing apps with Wi‐Fi hotspot and Wi‐Fi Direct functions: Zapya, SHAREit, Xender, and Feem. We use 22 static and live forensic tools for 11 platforms to acquire, analyze, and classify the forensic artifacts. In our experiments, we find many useful forensic artifacts and classify them into six categories. The experimental results can support law enforcement investigations of digital evidence and provide information for future studies on other cross‐platform file‐sharing apps.     

脑损伤患者听觉P300电位特点

目的探讨听觉P300电位对脑损伤患者认知功能障碍程度法医学评价的应用价值。方法对正常人和脑损伤患者,分别在主动（踩踏板）与被动任务状态下进行听觉P300测试。结果正常人主动任务状态P300电位中的N2、P3波波幅较被动状态高,潜伏期无明显延长,N1、P2波幅Cz点高于Pz点。脑损伤组被动任务状态下N2、P3波波幅较正常人被动状态下高．且潜伏期延长。脑损伤组主动任务状态P300电位中的N2、P3波波幅较被动状态高,且潜伏期延长。注意障碍患者P3波潜伏期改变最明显。结论任务类型主要影响N2、P3波幅。被动反应中的N2、P3潜伏期可作为评价脑损伤患者认知功能的指标。     

制备抗人精液特异蛋白P30血清的研究

作者以精浆特异蛋白P30为抗原免疫新西兰白兔、豚鼠和鸡三种实验动物,制备了抗P30血清。用双向琼脂扩散法检测兔和豚鼠的抗 P30血清,其特异性和敏感性均达到目前国外同类产品的水平。抗 P30血清与阴道分泌物,血清、唾液、尿液、初乳以及羊精液、鸡精液均不出现交叉反应。用抗 P30血清检测混合的人精浆,其抗原效价为1:160;P30含量可测到12.5ug/ml。在三种动物的抗血清中,豚鼠抗 P30血清的抗体效价最高。以不同浓度的 P30测豚鼠、兔和鸡抗 P30血清抗体效价豚鼠平均滴度可达52.50,兔次之,鸡的抗 P30血清最差。经作者制备的抗 P30血清可用来确证精液。