共享经济预付押金模式的法律挑战与应对/苏 盼(11)
[9] 李巍，朱四臣. 论押金担保. 当代法学，2000，(4).
[10] 王传薇，田雨. 关于共享单车押金的法律思考. 中国市场，2017，(17).
[11] 许德风. 破产法论——解释与功能比较的视角. 北京: 北京大学出版社，2015.
[12] 罗浩亮. 金融的属性: 共享单车 “押金” 治理模式研究. 甘肃金融，2017，(11).
[13] 彭冰. 非法集资行为的界定——评最高人民法院关于非法集资的司法解释. 法学家，2011，(6).
[14] 徐宏. 共享单车 “押金池” 现象的刑法学评价. 法学，2017，(12).
[15] 彭雨晨. 共享单车押金及预付资金监管规则的反思与重构//洪艳蓉. 金融法苑. 北京: 中国金融出版社，2018.
[16] 欧阳李宁. 被挪用的共享单车押金: 银行称专用账户平台并没有监管到位. 澎湃新闻网，2017-12-11.[2018-05-15] http://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1898550.
[17] 周珺. 押金之返还与承租人之保护——以美国法为中心. 武汉大学学报 (哲学社会科学版)，2011，(2).
[18] Edward H. Rabin. The Revolution in Residential Landlord-tenant Law: Causes and Consequences. Cornell Law Review, 1984, 69(3).
[19] 德国民法典. 陈卫佐译. 北京: 法律出版社，2015.
[20] 彭冰. 投资型众筹的法律逻辑. 北京: 北京大学出版社，2017.
[21] 王涵. 共享单车押金监管困局. 民主与法制时报，2017-12-17.
[22] 李铁柱. 广东消协诉小鸣单车退还用户押金. 北京青年报，2017-12-19.
Legal Chanlleges and Responses to Deposits in Sharing Economy
Su Pan (Shanghai University of Finance and Economics)
Abstract The new type of internet lease deposit model in sharing economy has changed the legal nature of deposits from “one property and one pledge” to “one person and one pledge”. The deposits create a huge money pool, causing security problems. However, it is problematic if the protection mechanisms for deposits go far beyond the framework of traditional legal rules. In terms of private law, deposits are ordinary rights. Thus the issue of deposit refund and bankruptcy protection can only be dealt with under the existing legal system. In terms of public law, deposits do not have financial attributes. The quasi-financial regulations including establishment of special accounts and special use of funds are not effective and should be improved. Facing market innovation, the goal of regulation should be pursuing a balance between security and creativity. Based on cost-benefit analysis, the de minimis exemption is applicable to movable property lease deposits. It is not necessary to establish an independent third-party depository mechanism. Instead, other credit-based methods should be encouraged to facilitate the market’s self-regulation. Technical means including funds frozen through pre-authorization may also be used to provide pledge. With regard to the issue of interest on deposits, contract autonomy is preferable. Through public interest litigation and judicial protection, the issue of deposit custody and return would be resolved.
总共12页
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] 11
[12] 上一页 下一页