Original title: courts do not accept P2P disputes? This is misread
On September 6, the Supreme People's Court issued a regulation on Several Issues concerning the trial of cases by Internet courts, specifying that specific types of Internet cases should be accepted by grass-roots people's courts within the jurisdiction of the cities under the centralized jurisdiction of the Internet courts, including cases not involving P2P network lending platforms, and that the Internet courts do not accept P2P lending. The loan dispute. The introduction of this rule immediately triggered a wave of public sentiment.
For some time, some Internet P2P platforms have exploded and investors have lost a lot. The judicial interpretation issued by the Supreme People's Court at this time has led to some misunderstandings that the court is shirking its responsibility and not filing cases involving P2P lending disputes, which makes it more difficult for investors to safeguard their rights.
This is a misreading of this judicial interpretation. If you look closely at the Supreme Court's provisions on Several Issues concerning Internet courts, you will find that it is not that the courts involved in P2P lending disputes do not file cases, but not in Internet courts. As we all know, the Internet Court has its particularity compared with ordinary courts. It is a whole online trial. The whole process of litigation links, such as case acceptance, service, mediation, evidence exchange, pre-trial preparation, court trial, pronouncement and so on, is networked, which highlights the convenience of the network.
Because of this, Internet courts are limited in the scope of cases, such as P2P lending disputes involving a large number of cases, evidence collection complex cases, not suitable for Internet courts to hear. In fact, the fact that the Internet courts do not accept P2P lending disputes shows that other ordinary courts can normally accept such cases, and does not block the victims to take the path of judicial proceedings to safeguard their rights, there is no need to interpret the Supreme Law this judicial interpretation too much.
The reason why there is a large area of misreading of judicial interpretation on the Internet, although some users are indeed unfamiliar with the laws and regulations, but do not rule out some people are deliberately misreading, to stimulate people's emotions, such a practice is too unkind, serious may violate the law. As an audience of public opinion, it is not necessary to listen to the wind and rain. We should firmly believe in the rule of law and believe that the future of China under the rule of law will be better and better.
Source: Legal Daily
Editor in chief: Zhang Yiling
Waonews is a news media from China, with hundreds of translations, rolling updates China News, hoping to get the likes of foreign netizens