Private Financing Or Reality

It is worth noting that, including this notice, the supreme law has issued a number of documents in recent years, trying to clarify folk. financing The blur zone. In December last year, the supreme law issued the case on properly handling private lending disputes in accordance with the law. Economics The notice of developing and maintaining social stability indicated that it is necessary to "properly and properly try through the law, standardize and guide the healthy and orderly development of private lending". In addition, the supreme law also issued six judicial proposals to the relevant state departments to regulate civil servants' participation in private lending, regulate and release lending activities among enterprises.

In November last year, the central bank opened its position to set the tone for private lending, and acknowledged that "private lending is a useful and necessary supplement to formal finance and has legitimacy at the institutional level". In February 15th this year, Wen Jiabao chaired a State Council executive meeting to study and plan for deepening the economy in 2012. system In the field of "encouraging private capital access", the reform focused on the financial sector. In the national financial work conference and many other occasions, Premier Wen also indicated that he encouraged private capital to enter the financial field, and the specific implementation details will be issued in the first half of this year.

This is obviously not "all things are related" can be explained, many policy signals intensive release, all point to folk finance this long-standing concept of entanglement, policies and regulations of the focus areas. from Law Level view, folk To loan Illegal absorption of public deposits and fund-raising fraud are all related to private financing. Crime and non crime, from civil disputes to criminal offences, can not be clearly defined. In particular, the description of charges between illegal public deposits and fund raising fraud is almost the same. The difference is only that the latter takes illegal possession as the purpose, and the consequences of penalty are very different, or even vital. In recent years, there have been too many disputes about the interpretation and application of related charges in judicial theory and practice. Wu Ying's fund-raising fraud, which has attracted much attention from the public and public opinion, is the most recent and most unlikely example.

It must be admitted that the essence of all disputes surrounding specific cases and related legal concepts is nothing but a bitter exploration of the country's attitude towards private finance. For a long time, the financial industry is strictly restricted in the field of private capital access. Under this policy background, there are various ways for the state to control and control financial subjects by legal means. In 2011, the "private lending crisis" in Wenzhou was booming. Data showed that only 10% of enterprises could get financing through formal financial channels, while nearly 90% of enterprises had to rely on private lending channels. Private finance is recognized or not recognized. It is there and growing. The problem behind it is that the financial institutions that have legal status at present do not really afford the blood vessels of China's grassroots market. At least, they are unable to meet the financial requirements of market development, especially the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises.

Whether to continue to allow private finance to go underground, not to regulate and guide for a long time, or to speed up reform for the sake of reform and to break through the bottleneck of restricting market development as soon as possible, to the time when we need to make a choice? In a sense, it even has no choice, because only the name of private finance can be called "standardization, guidance and guarantee of its positive development". The recent judicial efforts made by the supreme law are also aimed at solving the long-standing problem of private financing. At least, the "prudent" judicial attitude has won time for the reform of related fields in the country.

In fact, the attitude of the state towards private finance has not been loosened recently. In May 2010, the State Council issued a number of opinions on encouraging and guiding the healthy development of private investment, known as the new 36, which clearly stated that "encouraging and guiding private capital to enter the field of financial services". But in the past two years, the implementation details of ministries and commissions have not yet been released.

Correspondingly, private capital has often encountered "two doors" - the "glass door" that "can see in, really want to go in and bump into a big bump on the head", and the "spring door" that "just squeezed the foot into it and was accidentally fired" must be determined to break it.

It has gone a long way for the name of private finance, and what needs to be done now is to really implement and refine the new 36 as soon as possible, so as to promote relevant adjustments including legislation and judicature. Premier Wen Jiabao once said, "if all government policies do not stipulate that they are not allowed to enter, they should allow private capital to enter." Now it seems that even if the state has explicitly allowed private capital to enter the field, from the policy declaration to the detailed access path, there is still urgent need to get through the "last mile", which requires all parties' efforts.