公安机关抵押登记是否具有物权公示效力,在司法实践中颇有争议。本文案例中,某机电公司根据经营发展需要,将其名下的车辆抵押给某银行以便取得融资款项,双方在公安机关依法办理了抵押登记手续,后机电公司不能偿还贷款本息,银行将其诉至法院,法院依法判决银行对机电公司提供的车辆享有抵押权。之后,某担保公司(抵押物—车辆的所谓“所有权人”)却对公安机关的抵押登记提出异议,诉称公安机关的抵押登记无效,且银行不能善意取 Public security organs mortgage registration has the effect of publicity of property rights, quite controversial in judicial practice. In this case, an electromechanical company mortgaged a vehicle under its name to a bank for financing according to its business development needs. Both parties completed the mortgage registration formalities at the public security organ according to law, and the latter could not repay the loan principal and interest. To the court, the court ruled in accordance with the law of banks to provide motor vehicles and vehicles provided by the mortgage. After that, a guarantee company (mortgage - the so-called “owner” of the vehicle) challenged the registration of the mortgage by the public security organ, claiming that the public security organ’s registration of the mortgage is invalid and the bank can not take it in good faith