New Loan Assistance Regulations Land After Nearly Half a Year: Disguised High Interest Moves Underground, Some Borrowing Platforms Have Annual Rates Exceeding 460%

This article is sourced from Times Finance. Author: He Xiulan

On October 1, 2025, the General Office of the National Financial Regulatory Administration officially implemented the “Notice on Strengthening the Management of Commercial Bank Internet Assistance Lending Business and Improving Financial Service Quality and Efficiency” (hereinafter referred to as the “New Assistance Lending Regulations”). The notice clarifies that the comprehensive financing costs of commercial bank internet assistance lending must be calculated transparently, and it strictly prohibits disguising hidden fees such as consulting fees and advisory fees to artificially inflate financing costs. The regulation targets industry pricing chaos and the protection of financial consumers’ rights.

Nearly half a year after the new regulations took effect, mainstream institutions have fully reduced interest rates and standardized fee disclosures, establishing a preliminary compliance order in the industry. However, Times Finance’s investigation found that disguised high-interest practices still persist. Some non-mainstream institutions evade regulation by forcibly deducting membership fees, setting up “head-cutting” interest schemes, or launching short-term high-interest “Monthly Financing Guarantee” products, with some individual loans reaching an annualized interest rate of over 460%.

Tian Lihui, Dean of the Institute of Financial Development at Nankai University, pointed out to Times Finance that these violations reveal multiple “diseases” in the business model of the assistance lending industry. First, the long-term reliance on a “high interest covering high risk” approach has become unsustainable as interest rate caps tighten, forcing firms to split fees to survive. Second, some platforms hide interest within product premiums through installment shopping malls, essentially using complex structures to evade transparent regulation. Third, when “membership fees” and “guarantee fees” are severely disconnected from actual services, platforms have shifted from service providers to “harvesters.” The industry has long operated in a gray area of compliance, lacking genuine technological barriers and customer value thinking.

[Image source: TuChong Creative]

Under the guise of compliance, some platforms charge annual interest rates as high as 460%

Since the implementation of the new assistance lending regulations, the industry’s compliance process has accelerated significantly.

Times Finance visited several commercial banks and legitimate assistance lending platforms and learned that mainstream institutions have fully reduced interest rates. Platforms like “Trustworthy Borrow” and “Gaode Map Borrow” have lowered their annualized comprehensive financing costs to within 24%, with clear disclosures of fee structures. The previous common tactics of splitting “dual financing guarantees” and bundling membership fees to inflate interest rates have been largely halted.

Although mainstream institutions are now operating compliantly, the gray area of disguised high-interest practices still exists beneath the surface. Times Finance’s review of complaint platforms, user interviews, and interest rate calculations revealed that violations mainly occur among non-mainstream institutions, with even stronger concealment and more confusing tactics. These violations mainly appear in three scenarios.

The first and most common violations involve forcibly deducting membership fees and “head-cutting” interest, using “transparent compliance with hidden fees” methods to break the legal protection threshold of 24%.

For example, Chongqing Pigsy Jiayichuang Microloan Co., Ltd.'s platform “Jieyihua” relies on licensed microloan qualifications. Users report that the application page only displays about 20% of the nominal annual interest rate, with no prominent prompts regarding membership service purchases. Once the loan is approved and funds are disbursed, high membership fees are automatically deducted, causing the actual comprehensive annual interest rate to far exceed 24%.

The Black Cat Complaint Platform shows that as of March 11, there have been over 1,350 complaints related to Jieyihua, with more than 20 new complaints in the past 30 days. Main issues include forced membership fee deductions, difficulty in refunds, and aggressive collection.

Times Finance called the corporate phone number of Chongqing Pigsy Jiayichuang Microloan Co., Ltd., but it was not answered as of press time. Additionally, when contacting Jieyihua’s customer service as a user, the representative stated that the annual interest rate calculation only includes guarantee fees and interest, excluding membership fees. Currently, the mini-program and app are under maintenance and unable to process loans, with no clear timeline for restoration.

Besides Jieyihua, Times Finance also found similar issues with platforms like 58 Haojie and Jirong APP. A user of 58 Haojie reported that after borrowing 34,000 yuan in February 2026, 1,500 yuan of membership fees for “Youxiang Card” were immediately deducted by third-party agencies. Some users of Jirong APP said the platform deducted service and membership fees without their knowledge, with some loans having an annualized interest rate of about 77%.

[Image source: Black Cat Complaint Official Website Screenshot]

The third prominent violation involves short-term “Monthly Financing Guarantee” products becoming a new form of high-interest lending. These products promote “small amount, short-term, instant approval” targeting emergency borrowers, with advertising emphasizing “no collateral, instant funds.” In reality, they often add high guarantee fees, pushing the actual annualized interest rate into hundreds of percent. Loan terms are usually between 15 days and one month, with amounts ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 yuan, hiding high-cost traps.

Users reported that in November 2025, they borrowed 5,500 yuan on the “Xin Xiao Yong” platform, and after one month, the total repayment reached 7,625 yuan, including high guarantee fees, with an annualized rate exceeding 460%. Another user borrowed 5,500 yuan on the “Baitu Hua” app and, after adding guarantee fees, owed over 7,400 yuan, with an approximate annualized rate of 415%.

An unnamed manager of a small loan company told Times Finance that these violations are often carried out by platforms that register multiple “vest” apps or rent licensed guarantee companies, with some guarantee licenses costing between 800,000 and 2 million yuan annually.

Management loopholes in partner institutions create fertile ground for violations, and the new assistance lending regulations aim to steer compliance

It is important to note that violations are not limited to non-mainstream institutions. Some licensed financial institutions and their associated partners also have management loopholes that foster disguised high-interest practices. In particular, poor oversight of partner institutions is a significant factor.

In December 2025, Zhaolian Consumer Finance was fined 500,000 yuan by the Shenzhen Financial Regulatory Bureau for “improper management of partner institutions and inadequate post-loan fund use management.” Relevant responsible persons received warnings.

According to Times Finance’s incomplete statistics, in 2025, several consumer finance companies such as Jinmeixin and Sunshine Consumer Finance were penalized for inadequate management of third-party partners, including failure to independently calculate credit limits and loan pricing. These issues reveal significant shortcomings in the compliance controls of some licensed institutions, indirectly providing space for disguised high-interest practices.

A manager from a small loan company explained that the persistent existence of disguised high-interest practices is mainly due to some institutions’ strong profit motives and covert methods, making regulatory oversight difficult. Additionally, issues like overstepping business scope, excessive user data collection, and violent collection practices often accompany these practices, further harming consumer rights.

The core goal of the new assistance lending regulations is to standardize industry pricing and protect financial consumers. The regulations explicitly require that commercial banks include guarantee fees in the comprehensive financing costs when fees are specified in agreements; prohibit platform operators from charging any form of interest; and strictly forbid assistance service providers from disguising service fees as consulting or advisory fees to inflate costs. Banks must implement differentiated risk pricing, fully understand the actual charges of guarantee agencies, and ensure that the total financing costs of individual loans comply with the relevant provisions of the “Supreme People’s Court Opinions on Further Strengthening Financial Trial Work,” which set a maximum annual interest rate of 24%.

This opinion, issued as early as 2017, states that if a loan contract claims interest, compound interest, penalty interest, default fees, or other charges exceeding an annual rate of 24%, and these charges significantly deviate from actual losses, the excess should be reduced.

Dong Ximiao, Chief Economist of Zhaolian, told Times Finance that currently, some consumer finance companies lack independent customer acquisition and risk control capabilities, relying heavily on platforms and assistance lending institutions for traffic and guarantees. The high costs of customer acquisition and credit enhancement in these platforms lead to higher financing costs for borrowers. Poor management of cooperation with assistance and collection agencies results in frequent consumer complaints. Therefore, financial regulators are strengthening supervision of consumer finance companies to prevent financial risks, improve financial services, and effectively protect consumers’ legal rights, promoting high-quality industry development.

Regarding further regulation of assistance lending pricing and industry rectification, Tian Lihui suggested that a combination of “system improvement, technological empowerment, and market clearing” is necessary. On the policy level, efforts should be made to upgrade from “point constraints” to “full-chain transparency,” including bringing payment channels under regulatory oversight to cut off the funding lifelines of illegal platforms. Technologically, regulators need to develop “AI-to-AI” monitoring capabilities to accurately identify behaviors such as inflated prices in installment shopping malls and related third-party charges. Market-wise, a “graded supervision” system should be accelerated—guiding leading platforms to achieve compliant profitability through technology, encouraging mid-tier platforms to transform or merge, and resolutely clearing out players operating in gray areas like “Monthly Financing Guarantee.” The ultimate goal is to return finance to its core purpose: serving the real economy and respecting users.