发布时间： Mon Feb 06 18:03:16 CST 2017 供稿人：王唯一
来源：《商法》（第8辑第1期）
在“互联网+”的政策背景下，中国的互联网金融迅速发展，由此带来的争议也不绝于耳，其中P2P交易的纠纷引人关注。
P2P交易中，出借人和借款人互不相识，双方在P2P平台的撮合下订立合同。当借款人不履行还款义务时，部分P2P平台通过与之合作的第三方主体，试图在合规的前提下，回购出借人的债权。当债权受让人提起仲裁时，需向仲裁庭证明整个交易的过程。其中，资金是否实际完成支付，成为证明的关键。
出于风险控制，P2P平台须与资金存管机构合作，将出借人和借款人的资金存于资金存管机构之中。这使得此类案件中，当事人只能使用资金存管机构的数据来证明整个交易中的资金流向过程。因此，资金存管机构上的账户数据成为此类案件的核心证据。
第三方支付机构资金存管
2015年以前，部分P2P平台选择第三方支付机构作为资金存管机构。所谓第三方支付机构，是指依据中国人民银行颁布的《非金融机构支付服务管理办法》（《管理办法》）获得《支付业务许可证》的非金融机构。《管理办法》第26条规定：“支付机构接受客户备付金的，应当在商业银行开立备付金专用存款账户存放备付金……支付机构只能选择一家商业银行作为备付金存管银行，且在该商业银行的一个分支机构只能开立一个备付金专用存款账户。”
从前述规定来看，当第三方支付机构在提供资金存管服务时，所有的用户资金变成了该支付机构的备付金。所有用户资金存于同一账户，即该支付机构的备付金账户。故该支付机构上提供的每个用户账户上的资金流向数据实际上只是该支付机构内部的资金分类记录。这些数据的证明力与该支付机构的信用等级密切相关。
银行业金融机构资金存管
2015年7月，中国人民银行等十部门联合制定的《关于促进互联网金融健康发展的指导意见》中明确“从业机构（指互联网金融平台）应当选择符合条件的银行业金融机构作为资金存管机构，对客户资金进行管理和监督，实现客户资金与从业机构自身资金分账管理”，此举规范了行业行为，使得部分P2P平台开始与银行业金融机构进行合作。
2016年中国银监会、工业和信息化部、公安部、国家互联网信息办公室四部门联合制定颁布《网络借贷信息中介机构业务活动管理暂行办法》（《管理暂行办法》），《管理暂行办法》第28条进一步规定：“网络借贷信息中介机构应当实行自身资金与出借人和借款人资金的隔离管理，并选择符合条件的银行业金融机构作为出借人与借款人的资金存管机构。”
《管理暂行办法》第35条规定：“资金存管机构对出借人与借款人开立和使用资金账户进行管理和监督，并根据合同约定，对出借人与借款人的资金进行存管、划付、核算和监督。资金存管机构承担实名开户和履行合同约定及借贷交易指令表面一致性的形式审核责任，但不承担融资项目及借贷交易信息真实性的实质审核责任。”
由此，当使用银行业金融机构的资金存管业务时，每个P2P用户得以开具真正的银行账户，从技术上真正实现了与P2P平台和其他用户的资金账户的独立。鉴于银行业金融机构的公信力，不同账户之间的资金流向数据应对应着真实的资金转移，相关的证据获得仲裁庭采纳的可能性更高。
综上，当案件中的资金流向的证据来自第三方支付机构时，仲裁庭可衡量支付机构的信誉程度来决定是否予以采纳；而当这些资金流向的证据来自银行业金融机构时，仲裁庭可能直接对相关事实予以采纳。
P2P and its impact on evidence in internet finance cases
Under the Internet Plus policy, Chinese Internet Plus finance has been witnessing a boom time. There have also been many concerns, in particular with disputes arising out of P2P (peer to peer) transactions.
In a typical P2P transaction, the lender and the borrower are unknown to each other. They sign their contract through a P2P platform, an online lending information intermediary institution that provides a ‘matchmaking’ service on the internet. If the borrower fails to repay the money, a third party in partnership with the P2P platform may “buy back” the lender’s rights and then become the assignee of the rights. Finally, if the assignee files a claim against the borrower in an arbitration case, it has to show the whole process of the transaction to the arbitral tribunal. Therefore, whether the money has been really paid back to the lender becomes the key fact.
For risk control, P2P platforms must co-operate with a fund custodian, as the custodian of the funds of lenders and borrowers. So in a P2P dispute, the data from the fund custodian that prove the flow of funds become the only way to prove the key fact above. Therefore, these data are the key evidence.
Before 2015, some P2P platforms chose to co-operate with the third-party payment institutions (TPIs) as the fund custodian. By its definition, a TPI is a non-financial institution that obtains a payment business permit under the Administrative Measures for the Payment Services Provided by Non-financial Institutions, ordered by the People’s Bank of China.
According to article 26 of the administrative measures, “A payment institution which accepts clients’ deposits must open a special deposit account at a commercial bank and use it exclusively for clients’ deposits … A payment institution can only choose one commercial bank to take custody of its clients’ deposits, and can only open one special reserve account at one branch of the commercial bank.”
In light of the above regulations, when a TPI serves as the fund custodian, all the clients’ funds become its deposit and are in one bank account: a special deposit account of the TPI. So the data flow of the funds of all clients provided by the TPI is merely its interior record. Whether these data would be admitted by an arbitral tribunal depends on the credibility of the TPI.
In July 2015, 10 government official departments, including the People’s Bank of China, issued the Guiding Opinions on Promoting the Healthy Development of Internet Finance, in which it was prescribed that “Employers (here it means internet finance platform, the author notes) must select eligible banking financial institutions as fund depository agencies, conduct management and supervision of clients’ funds, and realize account-divided management of client funds and employers’ own funds”. It regulates the services provided by the internet finance platform and forces P2P platforms to co-operate with banking financial institutions (BFIs).
In 2016, four governmental official departments, including the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security and the State Internet Information Office, issued the Interim Measures for the Administration of the Business Activities of Online Lending Information Intermediary Institutions.
According to article 28 of the interim measures, “An online lending information intermediary institution must separate its own funds and the funds of lenders and borrowers for management, and select a qualified banking financial institution as the custodian of the funds of lenders and borrowers.”
Article 35 further prescribes that “Fund custodians must manage and oversee the opening and use of fund accounts by lenders and borrowers, and as agreed upon in contracts, take custody of, transfer, calculate and oversee the funds of lenders and borrowers. Fund custodians must undertake the esponsibilities for the formal examination of real-name account opening, performance of contractual agreements, and overall agreement of lending trade orders, and must not undertake the substantive examination of the authenticity of information on projects needing funding and lending transactions.”
So, when selecting the BFI as the fund custodian, each client of the P2P platform would have its own bank account and technically make its account independent from those of the P2P platform and other clients. Taking into account the high credibility of the BFI, the data flow of the bank account represents the real cash transfer and is more likely to be admitted by the tribunal.
To conclude, on one side, when the evidence of the data flow of funds comes from a TPI, its credibility may affect the tribunal’s decision as to whether to admit it; on the other hand, when the evidence of the data flow of funds comes from a BFI, such evidence is more likely to be admitted by the tribunal in the process of ascertaining the key fact.
