P2P网贷与债权众筹等同论之批判  

Critical Review of the Equivalence between P2P Lending and Debt-Based Crowdfunding

作　　者：余涛 YU Tao(School of Law,Southeast University,Nanjing 211189,China)

机构地区：[1]东南大学法学院,江苏南京211189

出　　处：《浙江工商大学学报》2020年第3期150-160,共11页Journal of Zhejiang Gongshang University

基　　金：江苏省社会科学基金项目“智能投顾信义义务规范的体系化构造研究”(19FXC002);中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金项目“存托凭证基础法律关系的构造”(2242020520025)。

摘　　要：P2P网贷与债权众筹等同论将其所谓的债权众筹与《JOBS法案》中的债权众筹相等同的做法,犯了混淆其所谓的债权众筹与《JOBS法案》中债权众筹的概念的逻辑错误,误导了我国监管者介入P2P网贷的时机和策略,扭曲了P2P网贷风控制度供给与风险防范需求,引发了被监管者在证券法中的身份界定难题。《JOBS法案》中关于债权众筹的监管规则对我国P2P网贷来说不具有可移植性,证券监管体制也不适合我国P2P网贷的监管。为了避免等同论继续起不良作用,应抛弃该理论。The equivalence theory between P2 P lending and debt-based crowdfunding mistakenly equates the debt-based crowdfunding that recognized by itself and that in the JOBS Act,which has misled the Chinese regulators in terms of regulatory timing and strategy,distorted the credit risk control system in relation to risk prevention,and kicked off many regulatory conundrums concerned with the P2 P lending participants’role in the context of securities regulation.The rules and regulations concerning debt-based crowdfunding in the JOBS Act are not transplantable for P2 P lending regulation in China,and so is the securities regulatory regime.In order to avoid the negative effects caused by the equivalence theory,we should abandon it.

关 键 词：P2P网贷 债权众筹 证券监管 直接融资 《JOBS法案》 

分 类 号：DF438[政治法律—经济法学]