Artificial intelligence, Shark Loan and Non-Shark Loan

They tell me that researchers from all over the world who work in the United States are focused on the artificial intelligence applied in very diverse fields of knowledge and daily life and that interest has been transferred to national and international law firms, expectant before the use shortly of artificial intelligence in legal practice. I lack sufficient knowledge to predict the future of artificial intelligence in legal practice, but I suspect that artificial intelligence applied to legal practice, if it is to come close to the legality and justice of the case, it will have to be – let me the expression – very intelligent and, what’s more, I wish it were still a human intelligence.
Let me explain: the justice and legality of the resolution of the case are in the smallest details of the case and in the way in which such details are made explicit and proven before the judge so that he can appreciate and assess them by the Law. I hope that both some, the legal advisers of the parties, and another, the Judge, continue to be human, not robots.
At a time when the application of the Azcárate Law of July 23, 1908, on the repression of a loan shark, to declare the existence of shark loans and in an environment in which interest rates are at historical lows, what would one think, at first glance, of a loan of one million euros, to be repaid in a maximum of thirty months and at an interest rate of thirty-five percent per annum? The economic data that could be analyzed by a first-generation artificial intelligence could lead to the conclusion of a “shark loan”.
Well, the Sentence of the 6th Section of the Provincial Court of Oviedo of April 26, 2019 (firm since last July 2019), confirmed the Sentence of the Court of First Instance No. 10 of Oviedo of December 7, 2018, and dismissed the claim for nullity by shark loan of the aforementioned loan, a claim filed by a partner of the borrowing company. Why? For the details of the case.
And it is that specifically in this case it was prosecuted:
(i) A commercial loan arranged between companies, for-profit purposes;
(ii) granted by the lender to the borrower without any guarantee for the first, in addition to that of a borrowing capital company with a capital stock of only three thousand euros;
(iii) granted to a capital company whose only source of income was the business itself that was financed by the disputed loan;
(iv) not having risked the partners of the borrower and in particular the partner actor any personal capital to face the return of the capital, apart from their respective contributions of fifteen hundred euros to the social capital and the granting of respective loans of one hundred thousand euros

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.