º¬Ðß²ÝÉçÇø

Building upon the foundational rules governing principal and term interest as analysed in Part 1 of this series, this article addresses the calculation of penalty interest and compound interest following a borrower¡¯s default. By reference to central bank rules, judicial interpretations and relevant precedents, it clarifies the legal character, preconditions for accrual, methods of computation and applicable restrictions.

The analysis also distinguishes the distinct interest rate ceilings applicable to financial versus non-financial institutions, providing a comprehensive and systematic framework for quantifying lenders¡¯ total losses in practice.

Penalty interest

Penalty interest constitutes punitive interest levied by banks where a borrower defaults on repayment or utilises loan proceeds contrary to the agreed purpose. Article 676 of the Civil Code mandates that borrowers in default shall pay overdue interest pursuant to the contract or state stipulations.

Under the Notice of the People¡¯s Bank of China on Issues Concerning RMB Loan Interest Rates, the penalty rate for overdue loans ranges from 30% to 50% above the contractual rate, while misuse of funds attracts a surcharge of 50% to 100% above the contractual rate.

Penalty interest is calculated as: overdue principal ¡Á penalty annual rate ¡Á days overdue ¡Â 360 (or 365).

Four rules govern the computation:

1. 1. The base comprises solely the overdue principal; rolling up penalty interest, default damages or compound interest is prohibited;
   2. The contractual rate prevails where specified, failing which the central bank standard applies, provided the rate does not materially exceed the actual loss suffered;
   3. Interest runs from the day after maturity or acceleration up to the date of full discharge; and
   4. A 360-day denominator is standard market practice, subject to a valid contractual election of 365 days.

The Opinions of the Supreme People¡¯s Court on Further Strengthening Financial Trial Work stipulate that the aggregate of interest, penalty interest, default damages and all other charges under a financial loan contract shall not exceed 24% per annum.

Additionally, penalty interest is to be segregated from the compound interest calculation base. As a punitive measure levied solely for overdue principal repayment, penalty interest shall not itself form the basis for any further compounding.

In the case Agricultural Bank of China v Li cited in Part 1 of this series, the penalty annual rate was contractually adjusted to 7.458%. On an overdue principal balance of RMB13,333.35 (USD1,949.65), the bank computed penalty interest outstanding at RMB158.10. The calculation conformed to the relevant requirements, and the court awarded the sum in full.

Compound interest

Compound interest denotes interest levied solely upon unpaid accrued interest and is subject to stringent limitations on both scope and application. It is not a sum a lender may claim at its unfettered discretion.

Under article 20 of the Regulations on the Administration of RMB Interest Rates, interest unpaid when due during the loan term shall compound at the contract rate on a quarterly or monthly basis. Once the loan goes into default, compounding shifts to the penalty rate.

The rule confines compounding to overdue interest, forbidding the compounding of principal or penalty interest. The formula divides the loan¡¯s lifecycle: in-term compound interest = overdue interest ¡Á contract rate ¡Á days accrued ¡Â 360; post-default compound interest = overdue interest ¡Á penalty rate ¡Á days in default ¡Â 360.

For instance, a RMB10 million facility with a 6% annual rate and quarterly interest settlements generates a first-quarter interest of RMB150,000. If the term interest remains unpaid and is followed by a default lasting 60 days at a 9% penalty rate, the in-term compound interest is RMB2,250, and the post-default compound interest is another RMB2,250, totalling RMB4,500.

Three categories of prohibited compounding can be identified: (1) compounding on principal; (2) compounding on penalty interest; and (3) unilateral compounding absent any contractual agreement. Where compound interest is aggregated with other charges, the combined sum remains subject to the 24% per annum ceiling.

In the case of Agricultural Bank of China v Li, the bank applied the appropriate rates to each segment of arrears, arriving at outstanding compound interest of RMB30.90. The court found this compliant with the rules and ruled in the bank¡¯s favour.

Judicial ceiling of interest rate

Crucially, the four-times loan prime rate (LPR) ceiling governs only private lending by non-financial entities.

Under article 1.2 of the Provisions of the Supreme People¡¯s Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases, disputes involving financial institutions ¨C and their branches ¨C that are properly authorised to lend by the financial regulators fall outside the four-times LPR cap.

Banks, trust companies, consumer finance companies, and the seven categories of local financial organisations, including licensed micro-credit companies, all fall outside the four-times LPR cap. Their interest rate terms are instead subject to financial regulation and judicial guidance.

Financial institutions, while outside the four-times LPR regime, are still bound by the 24% annual judicial ceiling. The courts will not enforce any combined total of interest, penalty interest, compound interest, default damages and other enforcement costs that exceeds 24%, and must allow a borrower¡¯s application to reduce it. For non-financial institutions, the four-times LPR cap is absolute, with any excess invalid.

The 360-day basis for interest calculation rests on clear regulatory authority. The Circular of the People¡¯s Bank of China on Issues Concerning the Calculation and Settlement of Interest on RMB Deposits and Loans authorises financial institutions to adopt either 360 or 365 days as the annual denominator.

The market convention of a 360-day year for deriving daily rates violates no mandatory legal rule, and its validity is consistently upheld in judicial practice.

Takeaways

Quantifying a bank¡¯s loss is a structured and rigorous legal and practical undertaking. Four interconnected components are at play: principal as the statutory base; term interest as the consideration for the use of funds; and penalty interest and compound interest as compensation for default.

To secure judicial backing for all legitimate losses, a financial institution must comply with the Civil Code, the central bank¡¯s rules and judicial guidance, distinguish between term and post-default periods, differentiate between financial and non-financial entities, calculate precisely, and meet the required standard of proof.

Chen Yanhong is a senior equity partner at DHH Law Firm and an associate professor, master¡¯s degree tutor and director of New Financial Law Research Center at North China Electric Power University (Beijing).

Read more about bank loss recovery

---

How principal, interest are calculated and applied in court (Part 1)

In financial loan disputes, the quantification and judicial recognition of loss is a primary focus of court proceedings, and essential to a bank¡¯s full recovery. The calculation is technical, complex and variable

---

For more stories about bank loss recovery, visit law.asia.