A 60-year-old villager in Henan inexplicably ended up with a 200,000 yuan loan, with the funds disappearing on the day it was deposited, leaving the destination a mystery. The villager’s social welfare funds have been continuously deducted for years to repay the loan, sparking attention on social media.
Recently, according to a report by the “New Beijing News” on May 28, Xing Zhuang Village, Shaobaizi Town, Tanghe County, Nanyang City, Henan Province, a villager named Xiao Xing reflected to reporters that his uncle, Xing Minjin, aged 60, was included in the rural social welfare system due to financial difficulties in October 2020. By the end of 2025, when he helped his uncle withdraw the welfare funds, he found that the balance in his social welfare account was zero.
At the same time, he was shocked to discover that on December 1, 2021, his uncle had a loan of 200,000 yuan under his name. Through bank statements, Xiao Xing found that this 200,000 yuan loan under Xing Minjin’s name was transferred to a strange account on the day it was disbursed.
Xiao Xing went to the loan bank to inquire, and the staff said that the funds had been withdrawn after two account transitions, but the bank did not disclose the identity of the final withdrawer. However, starting from the day of the loan disbursement, Xing Minjin’s account has been used to repay the principal and interest of the missing 200,000 yuan loan.
Xiao Xing noticed many suspicious points in the loan contract. For example, the individual customer credit investigation report from the loan bank (formerly Rural Credit Cooperative) described Xing Minjin as owning property worth 350,000 yuan, one private car worth 100,000 yuan, and savings of 100,000 yuan. This information was confirmed by two bank managers, Guo and Cheng.
Xing Minjin stated that on December 1, 2021, he was taken to the bank (Rural Credit Cooperative) by Xing Wanpo, a former village accountant, for the loan, but he was not informed about the purpose. In this loan, Xing Minjin acted as the borrower, with village peers Xing Wanpo and Xing Antian acting as guarantors. Xing Antian mentioned that he was also summoned by Xing Wanpo but did not fully understand the guarantee agreement.
Xing Wanpo claimed that he handled the loan on behalf of the loan bank (Rural Credit Cooperative) after being entrusted by the bank staff. Xing Wanpo found Xing Minjin, who was illiterate, and took him to the bank to complete the procedures. The funds from Xing Minjin’s loan were immediately withdrawn after disbursement.
In April 2024, the three individuals were taken to court for failing to repay the loan in full and on time by the Tanghe County Rural Credit Cooperative Union. The court ordered Xing Minjin to repay the principal within 10 days. Xing Wanpo and Xing Antian were jointly responsible for repayment, but Xing Minjin did not attend the court hearing.
Xing Wanpo mentioned that following the court ruling, he paid 20,000 yuan to unfreeze the accounts of himself and Xing Antian. Xing Minjin’s account continued to automatically deduct the social welfare funds for the repayment of the 200,000 yuan loan.
The report stated that the reporter consulted the current head of the responsible department at the loan bank (Rural Credit Cooperative) regarding Xing Minjin’s loan issue and the staff involved. The head did not provide contact information for the customer managers but mentioned that the bank’s disciplinary department is investigating the matter.
On May 27, Xiao Xing informed the “New Beijing News” that he received a call from the loan bank branch manager, stating that they had recovered 15,300 yuan of social welfare funds deducted from Xing Minjin.
This incident has sparked widespread attention on social media.
Netizens raised questions, stating, “The investigation report fabricated a 350,000 yuan property and a private car, and the credit officer stamped confirmation, which is not just a violation but also involves illegal loan issuance and falsification of documents.”
“An illiterate elderly person was fingerprinted to sign a contract, and the bank did not verify the person’s will during the face-to-face signing, rendering the audit process virtually inoperative. Internal violations in lending are basically inexcusable.”
“For the elderly, this is a case of falling victim to fraudulent crime (repaying principal and interest under a fictitious bank loan contract) and theft (social welfare funds). For the bank, this represents bank staff suspected of fraudulent lending crimes. Shouldn’t the nephew, as the elderly person’s relative, and the bank promptly report to the public security authority or involve the prosecutor’s office in such a serious criminal case? Is it adequate to resolve the unexplained recovery of social welfare funds?”
This incident deserves further investigation and accountability to ensure justice is served for the affected parties and prevent similar cases from happening in the future.