Beijing News Shell Finance News (Reporter Huang Xinyu) Recently, the Beijing Financial Court announced the "Top Ten Typical Cases in 2022", which is also the "Top Ten Typical Cases" released by the Beijing Financial Court for the second time since its establishment. Among them, an administrative reconsideration case involving the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, which occurred due to a credit card debt dispute, has attracted the attention of the industry.
Compared with the "Top Ten Typical Cases of 2021" first released by the Beijing Financial Court in 2022, the first anniversary of its founding, the reporter concluded that the court's "Top Ten Typical Cases of 2022" has a rich variety of types. The number of administrative reconsideration cases also increased from two to three.
Image source: Beijing News Shell Finance reporter based on the "Top Ten Typical Cases in 2022" published by the Beijing Financial Court
(Note: Among the 3 cases whose name suffix is contract disputes, they are composed of 2 cases of entrusted wealth management contract disputes and 1 case of financial loan contract disputes)
Image source: Beijing News Shell Finance reporter based on the "Top Ten Typical Cases of 2021" published by the Beijing Financial Court
(Note: Among the 5 cases whose name suffix is a contract dispute, 1 case is a dispute over a property insurance contract, 1 is a dispute over a reinsurance contract, and 1 is a dispute over a savings deposit contract.)
"Wu Moumou v. Beijing Banking and Insurance Regulatory Bureau, Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission administrative processing and administrative reconsideration case" is the only case related to the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission system among the three administrative reconsideration cases in the "Top Ten Typical Cases in 2022". The reason why this case has attracted the attention of the industry is that, in addition to the credit card disputes that occurred during the epidemic, the Beijing Financial Court also conducted necessary investigations into relevant market behaviors during the trial, which ultimately "prompted both parties to reflect on themselves." conduct and work together to resolve administrative disputes".
As a result, this case has become a typical representative of the characteristics of the Beijing Financial Court’s judicial adjudication work of “adhering to the concept of protecting financial consumers and small and medium-sized investors in accordance with the law, and better meeting the financial and judicial needs of the people”.
In the three administrative reconsideration cases in the "Top Ten Typical Cases of 2022", the appellants in the second instance (or the plaintiffs in the first instance) are all individuals
On March 23, the Beijing Financial Court held a press conference on the second anniversary of its establishment and the top ten typical cases, and then announced the specific content of the "Top Ten Typical Cases in 2022". According to Xue Feng, a member of the party group and vice president of the court, these ten typical cases were selected from more than 8,000 cases concluded by the Beijing Financial Court in 2022, and all have certain rule-creating significance and demonstration value.
Among the "Top Ten Typical Cases in 2022" of the Beijing Financial Court, there are financial civil and commercial cases involving financial loans, entrusted wealth management, insurance, and financial equity disputes, as well as financial enforcement cases with new types of rights and interests as the subject matter, as well as dissatisfaction A financial administrative case of the administrative behavior of "One Bank, Two Councils, One Bureau".
Especially the latter, the reporter noticed that in the "Ten Typical Cases" released by the Beijing Financial Court in 2021, two administrative reconsideration cases were disclosed in which fines or administrative coercive measures were imposed due to dissatisfaction with the China Securities Regulatory Commission and the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission. "Jiang and others v. Xiamen Securities Regulatory Bureau, CSRC Confiscation of illegal income, fines and administrative reconsideration" and "Sichuan Hongda Co., Ltd. v. China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, Sichuan Banking and Insurance Regulatory Bureau administrative compulsory measures and administrative reconsideration". However, in the three administrative reconsideration cases in the "Top Ten Typical Cases of 2022", the appellants of the second instance (or the plaintiffs of the first instance) are all individuals.
Specifically, the three administrative reconsideration cases of "Top Ten Typical Cases in 2022" are "Wu Moumou v. Beijing Banking and Insurance Regulatory Bureau, China Banking Regulatory Commission Administrative Disposal and Administrative Reconsideration Case", "Yang Moumou v. , fines, restriction of employment and administrative reconsideration" and "Wu Moumou v. State Administration of Foreign Exchange Gansu Branch, State Administration of Foreign Exchange warning, fine and administrative reconsideration".
Among them, from the perspective of the trial process and results, the "Wu Moumou v. Beijing Banking and Insurance Regulatory Bureau, Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission administrative handling and administrative reconsideration case" seems a bit special. The Beijing Financial Court explored the legislative purpose of substantively resolving disputes in administrative litigation.
In practice, there have been situations where "administrative litigation procedures are idle" and "administrative disputes are difficult to be completely resolved through one administrative litigation case"
Looking back at the facts of the case, the occurrence of this case is closely related to the credit card disputes between individuals and financial institutions during the epidemic.
Wu Moumou, who holds a credit card with a credit limit of 20,000 yuan from a certain bank, has been repaying normally before, and owed 19,000 yuan during the epidemic. Wu Moumou negotiated installment repayment with the credit card center of the bank many times, but the other party never agreed to handle it. On November 2, 2020, Wu Moumou filed a complaint with the Beijing Banking and Insurance Regulatory Bureau, requesting to "order the bank's credit card center to handle installments for him and reduce or exempt all interest charges".
The Beijing Banking and Insurance Regulatory Bureau informed Wu after investigation that the substance of the matter he reported was a consumer complaint, and the bureau had transferred it to the corresponding agency for handling. Wu Moumou refused to accept the administrative reply, and then applied to the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission for administrative reconsideration. On May 13, 2021, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission made a decision to "reject Wu Moumou's application for administrative reconsideration".
Wu Moumou still expressed dissatisfaction, so he filed a lawsuit with the court. After trial, the court of first instance dismissed Wu Moumou's prosecution. Therefore, Wu Moumou appealed to the Beijing Financial Court.
The Beijing Financial Court found that Wu Moumou had made normal repayments before and still had the willingness to repay. This time Wu Moumou was indeed unable to repay the loan on time due to special reasons due to the epidemic. At the same time, the court also learned that relevant state departments issued relevant policies during the epidemic, requiring financial institutions to flexibly adjust personal credit repayment arrangements such as credit cards for those who have temporarily lost their source of income due to the epidemic.
Therefore, the Beijing Financial Court finally, from the perspective of substantive resolution of administrative disputes, cooperated with the Beijing Banking and Insurance Regulatory Bureau and relevant banks to gain an in-depth understanding of the actual situation involved in the case, and essentially resolved Wu's appeal. Later, Wu Moumou applied to withdraw the appeal of the case.
Outside the court hearing, Xue Feng told reporters when summarizing the case that the Beijing Financial Court grasped the core of the dispute during the trial of the controversial administrative behavior, investigated and understood the market behavior that caused the administrative dispute, and finally urged both parties to Reflect on your actions and work together to resolve this administrative dispute.
According to Hu Jianmiao, a first-level professor at the Central Party School (National School of Administration), when my country’s Administrative Procedure Law was revised on November 1, 2014, “resolving administrative disputes” was added as a legislative purpose, which has continued to this day. "(This) is aimed at the situation that administrative litigation procedures are idle to a certain extent in practice, and administrative disputes are difficult to be completely resolved through an administrative litigation case."
"The actual issue of this administrative dispute needs to understand the relevant circumstances of the administrative counterpart (that is, Wu XX) and the bank credit card dispute. If only the legality review and judgment of the respondent and the administrative reconsideration decision are made, although it is in line with my country's Administrative Litigation Law stipulations, but cannot resolve the administrative dispute." Hu Jianmiao analyzed.
"(Doing this) not only maintains the law enforcement authority of financial supervision, but also fully protects the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved, and achieves a good social effect of 'the case is closed', which demonstrates the people's nature of law enforcement and justice." Xue Feng said in the end of the case As said in the effect.