隆安潘修平、权鲜枝、金作鹏、郑磊、赵建军律师以中英文在钱伯斯发表文章《刑民交叉金融纠纷案件中合同效力的认定》

在金融借款纠纷案件中，刑民交叉的情形非常常见。银行的经办人员构成非法发放贷款罪，借款人或担保人的法定代表人或经办人员构成贷款诈骗罪。在当事人已经被判刑的情况下，如何认定借款合同、担保合同的效力，就成了一个有争议的问题。

在《合同法》时代，法院往往依据《合同法》第五十二条的规定，认定当事人以合法形式掩盖非法目的，判决借款合同无效。《民法典》删除了以合法形式掩盖非法目的的规定，但法院会依据《民法典》第一百五十三条第二款的规定，认定借款合同违背公序良俗而无效。在认定借款合同无效的同时，法院会判决借款人偿还借款本金（但应减除刑事案件追回的部分）。由于借款人的法定代表人或经办人员已被判刑，借款人此时已无偿还能力，该项判决很难执行。同时，由于借款合同无效，担保合同也被判无效，银行无法追究担保人的责任。

从审判实践看，当事人构成犯罪必然导致合同无效的裁判观点，既不利于实现打击犯罪和保护被害人的刑法目的，也不符合当事人订立合同的民法目的。民事责任和刑事责任作为两种不同性质的法律责任，各自有其不同的发生根据和特定的适用范围。法院对合同效力的认定，应当以民法典及其他民事法律关于民事法律行为效力的规定作为裁判依据。贷款诈骗罪的主观方面属于故意犯罪，而非法发放贷款罪的主观方面属于过失，即行为人对于其非法发放的贷款可能造成的重大损失是出于过失，这种过失是出于过于自信的过失。任何人不得因违法行为获利，是刑法和民法共同的立法精神。在价值导向上，法院对涉犯罪合同效力的认定，要正确适用法律，防止违法犯罪者因违法犯罪行为获利，防止民事裁判对守法当事人造成“二次伤害”。

银行工作人员所实施的违法发放贷款行为损害了其所在银行的利益，其行为效果不能归因于银行，银行并未因此构成犯罪。合同一方当事人构成金融诈骗犯罪，致使合同相对方在合同订立时意思表示不真实，该犯罪行为同时构成民事欺诈，受欺诈方可以根据《民法典》第一百四十八条的规定，请求撤销借款合同。如果受欺诈一方不行使撤销权，又无其他法定合同无效情形，应依法认定该合同有效。担保人以主债务人或者债权人的借贷行为涉嫌犯罪或者已经生效的裁判认定构成犯罪为由，主张不承担民事责任的，法院应当依据主合同与担保合同的效力、当事人的过错程度，依法确定担保人的民事责任。

借款合同按可撤销合同处理，主动权就掌握在银行手中。银行当然不会主张撤销借款合同，撤销期限为一年，在该期限经过后，借款合同就变成有效的合同，担保合同也随之而有效。这样才符合当事人订立合同的目的，在民事诉讼中才能保护作为刑事案件受害人的银行的利益。

Determination of the Validity of Contracts in Financial Dispute Cases Involving Criminal-civilian Intersection

——Taking Financial Loan Contracts as an Example

In cases of financial loan disputes, the occurrence of a criminal-civil intersection is commonplace. Actions by banking personnel may constitute the offense of illegal loan issuance, while the legal representatives or agents of borrowers or guarantors may be implicated in the crime of loan fraud. When the parties involved have already been convicted, determining the validity of loan agreements and guarantee contracts becomes a contentious issue.

◆ In criminal-civil intersection cases, banks suffer harm in both criminal proceedings and civil litigation.

During the era of the “Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China,” courts often relied on Article 52 of the “Contract Law” to declare loan contracts void when parties concealed an illegal purpose under a legal form. Although the “Civil Code” has removed the provision regarding concealing an illegal purpose under a legal form, courts may now, based on Article 153(2) of the “Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China,” deem loan contracts void if they violate public order and good customs. Alongside declaring the loan contract void, the court will order the borrower to repay the loan principal (deducting the portion recovered in criminal cases). Given the borrower’s incapacity to repay due to the conviction of their legal representatives or agents, enforcing such a judgment becomes challenging. Simultaneously, since the loan contract is void, the guarantee contract is also invalidated, preventing the bank from holding the guarantor accountable.

From a judicial perspective, the viewpoint that the commission of a crime inevitably renders a contract void is not conducive to achieving the criminal law objectives of combating crime and protecting victims. Civil and criminal liabilities are two distinct legal responsibilities with different legal bases and specific scopes of application. The court’s determination of contract validity should be based on provisions in the “Civil Code” and other civil laws regarding the effectiveness of civil legal acts. The subjective aspect of the crime of loan fraud involves intent, while the subjective aspect of the offense of illegal loan issuance involves advertent negligence. Not profiting from illegal conduct is a legislative spirit shared by both criminal and civil law. In terms of values, the court’s determination of the effectiveness of contracts involving criminal acts should correctly apply the law to prevent illegal criminals from benefiting and to avoid causing “secondary harm” to law-abiding parties in civil judgments.

◆ When a criminal offense concurrently constitutes civil fraud, a loan contract should be treated as a revocable contract.

Illegal loan issuance by bank staff harms the interests of the bank they work for, and the effects of their actions cannot be attributed to the bank, which does not constitute a crime. When one party to a contract commits financial fraud, causing the other party to make the untrue manifestation of intention during contract formation, this criminal act simultaneously constitutes civil fraud. According to Article 148 of the “Civil Code,” the defrauded party can request the annulment of the loan contract. If the defrauded party does not exercise the right of annulment and there are no other statutory grounds for contract invalidity, the contract should be deemed valid in accordance with the law. If a guarantor, claims exemption from civil liability based on the alleged commission of a crime or a final judgment declaring a crime, the court should determine the guarantor’s civil liability based on the effectiveness of the main contract and the guarantee contract, as well as the degree of fault of the parties involved.

◆ Conclusion

Treating a loan contract as a revocable contract gives the initiative to the bank. The bank is unlikely to assert the annulment of the loan contract, and the annulment period is one year. After this period, the loan contract becomes valid, and the guarantee contract also becomes effective. This approach aligns with the purpose of the parties entering into the contract and protects the interests of the bank as a victim in criminal cases in civil litigation.