1. The summary of payment amount shows the loan principal, initial service fee, monthly insurance premium, monthly guarantee fee, monthly platform fee, monthly service fee and monthly total payment. The difference between the total monthly payment and the initial service fee, monthly insurance fee, monthly guarantee fee, monthly platform fee and monthly service fee is 4728.438+08 yuan. However, it is impossible to know the cost of this 4728. 18 yuan; It is impossible to know how much principal and interest will be repaid every month.
2. The personal loan application shows that without the participation of the lender and the borrower reaching a consensus on the signing of the main contract, that is, the loan contract, a P2P online lending platform and guarantee institution make a good claim declaration, determine the loan principal amount, determine the monthly debt service amount, and determine the income of itself and its related parties in the names of monthly platform fee, monthly guarantee fee and monthly service fee.
3. The service power of attorney charges fees skillfully by listing the so-called false service items such as financing consulting service, credit status evaluation, signing process guidance, question consultation feedback, repayment reminder service, loan document delivery, etc. in a legal form, covering up the purpose of the guarantee company illegally occupying the borrower's money. It is mentioned that there is a personal loan agreement, such as "any party can bring a lawsuit to the people's court according to the personal loan agreement", but the borrower has never seen a personal loan agreement.
According to the content of the entrusted guarantee contract, we can know that it is actually a guarantee contract. According to Article 68 1 of the Civil Code, the guarantor and the guaranteed (the lender) should have signed it together, but in this case, the guarantee contract was "signed" by the guarantor and the borrower, and obviously one party (the borrower) was not qualified. The role of the entrusted guarantee contract is the same as that of the service power of attorney.
5. The insurance policy was unilaterally issued by the insurance company when the borrower's application form and the insurance contract signed by the borrower and the insurance company did not exist, that is, when the establishment and effectiveness of the insurance contract in this case were in doubt, so it was not binding on the borrower. The insured (lender) shown on the insurance policy is three natural persons, with only surname, anonymous name, no ID number, no contact address and no contact telephone number, which is the only place where lender information is displayed so far.
The loan contract is the main contract, and other agreements such as the guarantee contract are subsidiary contracts. The premise of the establishment and effectiveness of the subsidiary contract is the establishment and effectiveness of the main contract-the loan contract. The premise of the establishment and validity of a loan contract is that the borrower and the lender have effectively negotiated the contents of the contract, reached an agreement, and signed it by hand or electronic signature. However, even borrowers don't know who these lenders are. Naturally, lenders know nothing about borrowers these days. How do borrowers and lenders talk about the negotiation and signing of loan contracts? It can be seen that the so-called personal loan agreement does not exist at all. Even if it exists, it is fabricated by these three institutions and is not binding on borrowers.
Therefore, the payment amount list, personal loan application, service power of attorney, entrusted guarantee contract and insurance policy in this case are invalid and not binding on the borrower.
However, the borrower did receive a loan of 6.5438+0.5 million yuan, and the funds of 6.5438+0.78 million yuan were deducted one after another. What does this mean? It shows that these three institutions collude maliciously. By forging contracts, controlling the flow of funds and other means, one party illegally raises funds, and the other party illegally lends the illegally raised funds to the borrower, or illegally lends them in the name of P2P online lending.
Note: This article is based on specific cases and part of the lawyer's review report, which is not universally applicable and is for reference only. Readers need to entrust professional lawyers to analyze and evaluate their cases according to the specific circumstances, and arrange settlement plans, complaints, defenses, debates and appeals in a targeted manner. Imitate imitators at their own risk.