Abstract: P2P network lending is currently under the jurisdiction of the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC). The practice is a mistaken scheme brought by literal misunderstanding. As most P2P network lending products meet the elements required by “investment contracts”, they should be categorized into “securities” and supervised by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC). Since P2P loans take place without intermediaries as direct rather than indirect financing, CBRC cannot conduct prudential supervision over them. Since the issuers of the lending products of P2P network do not have a license, local governments cannot regulate them in the same way as regulate institutions. In addition, according to the “twin peaks supervision theory”, behavior supervision and prudential supervision are two different types of supervisions with distinctive characteristics and styles. But the main task of CBRC is to conduct prudential supervision over largescale depository institutions, so the regulation of P2P network lending by CBRC is not a proper choice.

Key words: investment contract, direct financing, P2P network lending, securities