By Xiaosu Zhu (Watson & Band) and Anna Chan (OLN) 

In a landmark decision by the Hong Kong Court of First Instance in Re Joint and Several Liquidators of CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd (the “CEFC Case”), the Hong Kong Courts extended recognition and assistance to liquidators in Mainland China, which is a huge step towards Hong Kong-PRC coordination in cross-border liquidations. 

Previously, there has also been precedents whereby Hong Kong Court urged for multi-jurisdictional cooperation in cross-border liquidation cases. In Re Da Yu Financial Holdings Limited, the Court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement proposed by a Cayman-incorporated company listed in Hong Kong and commented that the full blown parallel schemes, instead of a simple recognition of foreign scheme, are an outmoded way of conducting cross-border restructuring. The CEFC Case now marks the first time that Hong Kong Courts has recognized and provided assistance to liquidators from the Mainland China, a non-common law jurisdiction. 

Background 

CEFC Shanghai International Group Limited (“CEFC”) is a PRC-incorporated company undergoing insolvent liquidation in the Mainland China. CEFC’s assets included a claim against its Hong Kong subsidiary, Shanghai Huaxin Group (Hong Kong) Limited, amounting to around HK$7.2 billion (the “Receivable”). Given the Subsidiary was in liquidation in Hong Kong, CEFC had submitted a proof of debt in respect of the Receivable. 

Subsequently, CEFC’s liquidators (known as “administrators” in PRC) discovered that, before the liquidation, a creditor of CEFC had obtained default judgment against CEFC in Hong Kong for a sum of around EUR 29 million, and a Garnishee Order nisi in respect of the Receivable. 

If CEFC was only asserting itself as the creditor of the Hong Kong subsidiary, it would only rank pari passu with the judgment creditor, therefore running the risk that it would be too late to enforce upon the Receivable if the judgment creditor obtained Garnishee Order absolute.   

To mitigate such risk, the PRC liquidators sought recognition of the PRC insolvency proceedings, and assistance for a stay of the Garnishee proceedings. The Hong Kong Court granted such recognition and assistance, and allowed the stay of the creditor’s Garnishee proceedings.  

Criteria for application to the Hong Kong Court 

Mr. Justice Harris summarized the now well-established principles and procedures governing applications to the Courts of Hong Kong for recognition and assistance. Provided that:- 

1. the foreign insolvency proceedings are collective insolvency proceedings; and
2. the foreign insolvency proceedings are opened in the company’s country of incorporation,

the Court may recognize insolvency proceedings in a civil law jurisdiction. Upon recognition, the Court will then grant assistance to the foreign liquidators by applying Hong Kong insolvency law. The above 2 criteria were ruled to be satisfied in the present case. 

However, in the judgment the Court said that it will not grant the foreign liquidators all powers as are available to a liquidator appointed pursuant to the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32 of the Laws of Hong Kong)(“CWUMPO”). Powers of assistance granted to foreign liquidators are limited to:- 

1. enabling the foreign liquidators to do something which they could do under the law by which  they are appointed;
2. only when it is necessary for the performance for the foreign liquidators’ function; and
3. where it is consistent with the substantive law and public policy of the assisting court.

Mr. Justice Harris opined that the case satisfied all of the above requirements, and observed that there were considerable similarities in the insolvency laws of Hong Kong and the PRC, such as the powers and duties of liquidators and pari passu distribution of debtor’s assets. 

His Lordship also held that, if a creditor commences Garnishee proceedings in Hong Kong after liquidation has commenced, the Garnishee proceedings should be terminated. Even if an order nisi has been obtained before the foreign insolvency proceedings, the Court has discretion to make the order absolute. In coming to the conclusion, the English case Galbraith v Grimshaw was held to be incompatible with modern insolvency laws (and indeed the case has been subject to much judicial and academic criticism) and therefore no longer applicable. 

Significance 

This case is the first ever in time that Mainland Chinese liquidators have applied for and been granted recognition from the Hong Kong Court. Although the Court cautioned that assistance granted to PRC liquidators should be on a case by case basis, this case certainly lends support to future PRC liquidators in seeking Hong Kong Court’s recognition and assistance (provided that they pass the thresholds). Immediately following this case, on 4^th June 2020 in Re Shenzhen Everich Supply Chain Co Ltd, Mr. Justice Harris made another ruling recognizing the Shenzhen bankruptcy proceedings and the appointment of the liquidator by Shenzhen intermediate Court, empowering the liquidator to exercise its powers in Hong Kong. 

In light of the growing trend for PRC-incorporated companies to hold assets in Hong Kong, it is expected that where such companies enter liquidation, liquidators will seek Hong Kong Court’s recognition relying on this landmark judgment. If the mainland Chinese authorities are agreeable to promoting a unitary approach to trans-national insolvencies like Hong Kong, it is likely that this case will become highly persuasive in favour of Hong Kong Courts granting recognition and assistance to mainland liquidators.  

This result can also be contrasted with past cases where the Hong Kong Courts refused assistance to trustees of a foreign-incorporated company governed by foreign jurisdictions, such as in the case of China Fishery Group Ltd where it was held that the companies involved did not have a connection with the US. In that case, the companies involved were found to have been acting in bad faith by filing the Chapter 11 proceedings in the US and appointing the trustee thereunder, in an attempt to defeat the creditor’s enforcement action under the Hong Kong jurisdiction. As such, the Courts declined to allow the companies to reap from their egregious conduct. 

It appears to suggest that, provided that companies have acted in good faith in the proceedings, Hong Kong Courts are prepared to offer recognition and assistance to liquidators. This would be in the interest of expediting cross-border insolvency and restructuring in future. 

The position by the PRC Courts remains to be tested. According to the PRC Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, if a legally effective foreign ruling on a bankruptcy case involves the property of a debtor within the territory of Mainland China, and an application for the recognition and execution thereof is filed with the Mainland Court, the Mainland Court shall, according to international treaties or the principle of reciprocity, review the ruling, and decide whether to recognize or execute such ruling having regard to factors such as whether such recognition or execution would violate the fundamental principles of the law of Mainland China, impair state sovereignty, security and social public interests, or impair the legitimate rights and interests of the debtors within Mainland China. However, in practice, so far there is no precedent in which Mainland Courts recognize the effectiveness of foreign bankruptcy proceedings. 

Now that Hong Kong Courts have made this breakthrough, it is expected to lead to positive influence on Mainland Courts. Whether Mainland and Hong Kong will further recognize and cooperate in cross-border insolvency and restructuring in the future will largely depend on whether Mainland Courts, like the Hong Kong Courts, will adopt a unified approach. In fact, mutual recognition by the Mainland and Hong Kong Courts is believed to be a two-way street and the Supreme People’s Court in China has begun to explore and establish institutional arrangements for judicial assistance in insolvency cases with relevant parties in Hong Kong. This case definitely provides reference and practical experience in this area and will have a great impact on foreign application for recognition in the Mainland in the future. 

Other points to note in cross-border insolvency

1. Application of pari passu principle

It is commonly the case that in cross-border insolvency, a company in one jurisdiction holds assets situated in a foreign jurisdiction. It has been held in Re Guangdong International Trust & Investment Corporation Hong Kong (Holdings) Ltd that it is possible to apply the principle of pari passu distribution to distribute the insolvent estate’s assets both in Hong Kong and abroad.In that instance, the liquidators of the company were tasked with distributing the company’s cash in a PRC bank account, and its Hong Kong assets, to the creditors. Given the mainland regulations on currency transfer, the cash in the PRC bank account could only be transferred to other PRC bank accounts. The Court allowed the proposed mechanism of distribution of the PRC account balance to creditors who had a PRC account, and distribution of Hong Kong assets to those who did not receive the PRC account balance, both on a pari passu basis. Despite this mechanism not involving a pooling of all assets of the company before pari passu distribution, it was held that the principle was concerned with achieving a substantive result but not the procedural mechanisms. This is a welcoming flexibility that would no doubt assist future liquidators in proposing methods of distribution of assets, where there might be procedural difficulty in adhering to the traditional understanding of pari passu principle.

2. Bankruptcy proceedings vs. garnishee proceedings

Notably, if the parent company undergoing liquidation were a Hong Kong company instead of a Shanghai entity, it would still result in the way as in the CEFC Case (that the Garnishee proceedings could not continue against the company’s receivables). This is by virtue of section 186, CWUMPO, which provides that when a winding-up order has been made, or a provisional liquidator has been appointed, no proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the liquidating company (except by leave of the Court). It is a well-settled principle that the Court has inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings (e.g. Garnishee proceedings) or stay execution against a company in liquidation, with good policy reasons behind. It would be “unfair or more likely an abuse” if, in liquidation where pari passu distribution of a judgment debtor’s asset is in place or imminent, the judgment creditor gains an unfair advantage over other creditors by enforcing the judgment. In the CEFC Case, the stay of Garnishee proceedings was precisely because the Court wished to achieve the same result as it would in local winding-ups under section 186 CWUMPO, so that it may oversee creditor action to promote an orderly liquidation. 

Comparison of the insolvency regimes in Hong Kong and Shanghai/PRC 

Extrapolating on the Court’s ending remark on unitary approach by the two jurisdictions, this part sets out differences in winding-up proceedings in Hong Kong and Shanghai in order to explore the possibility of future similar treatment of Hong Kong liquidators by the PRC authorities.   

	Hong Kong	Shanghai/ PRC
Primary legislation	CWUMPO; andCompanies Ordinance (Cap. 622).	Enterprise Bankruptcy Law; andthe relevant Judicial Interpretations on Enterprise Bankruptcy Law by the Supreme People’s Court
Corporate rescue/ restructuring regime	No rescue regimes, but restructuring by scheme of arrangement is possible.	There are special chapters under the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law about corporate rescue and restricting, namely Chapter 8 about reorganization and Chapter 9 about reconciliation.
Insolvency test	Company is unable to pay its debts and if:- A creditor serves on the company at its registered office a Statutory Demand and the company neglects to pay the sum within 3 weeks of service; Execution or other process issued on a judgment or court order in favor of the creditor is returned unsatisfied; or After considering the contingent and prospective liabilities of the company, it is proved to the court that the company cannot pay its debts. The usual test relied upon is the cash flow test but the balance sheet test is also applicable, and is applied as the Court considers appropriate.	An enterprise is unable to pay its debts due and if: Its assets are not sufficient to pay all its debts (namely, the balance sheet test); or Such enterprise obviously lacks solvency (to some extent like the cash flow test). If the assets of a debtor exceed the liabilities on the balance sheet, the Court will hold that it obviously lacks solvency if: it is unable to pay its debts due to such reasons as the serious insufficiency of funds or the failure to realize property; or it is unable to pay its debts because the whereabouts of its legal representative is unknown and there is no other person responsible for managing its property; or it is unable to pay its debts upon enforcement of the Court; orit is unable to pay its debts because it has made a loss for a long time and it is difficult for it to turn losses into profits; or in any other circumstances which result in the loss of solvency of the debtor. As for reorganization, the threshold could be even lower; as long as the enterprise has apparently forfeited the ability to pay its debts, it may undergo reorganization according to the provisions of the Law.
Applicants	Winding up proceedings: Creditors, directors, shareholders Scheme of arrangement: Creditors, liquidators, shareholders	Bankruptcy Liquidation (winding ups): Creditors,  debtor Reorganization:   Creditors, debtor, shareholders who hold more than one-tenth of the debtor’s registered capital  Reconciliation:   Debtor
Secured creditors’ position	Secured creditors can enforce its security.	Secured creditors can enforce its security.
Transactions subject to challenge	Unfair preferences: If the company previously entered into any transaction influenced by the desire to prefer a particular creditor over creditors, the liquidator may apply to the Court to have the transaction set aside. Such transaction must have occurred:In the 6 months before liquidation has commenced; orIn the 2 years before liquidation has commenced if transaction is with an associate of the company, its director or shadow director. Dispositions in compulsory liquidation: All dispositions of property, transfer of shares, or alteration of shareholders’ status after commencement of winding up will be void. Extortionate credit transactions: A liquidator may apply to the Court for various orders regarding a transaction, which requires grossly exorbitant payments or is otherwise grossly against fair dealing principles, entered into within 3 years before commencement of the winding up.  Transaction at undervalue: Transactions at undervalue entered into within 5 years before liquidation has commenced may be voidable. This refers to transactions by the company where the company receives consideration significantly less than that provided by the company, or receives no consideration. Floating charges: A floating charge may be invalid if it was created:Within 2 years before the liquidation has commenced, if created in favor of an associate of the company, its director or shadow director; orWithin 1 year before the liquidation has commenced, if created in favor of other persons.	Within 6 months before the Court accepts the application for bankruptcy, if the debtor meets the bankruptcy test but still pays debts to specific creditors, the liquidator is entitled to request the Court to rescind the payoff unless the debtor’s property benefits from such payoff.After the Court accepts the application for bankruptcy, it shall be invalid for the debtor to pay off debts to a particular creditor.The following activities concerning the property of the debtor shall be invalid and the liquidator is entitled to recover the property:Hiding or transferring property for avoidance of debts;Fabricating debts or recognizing unreal debts.Within 1 year before the Court accepts the application for bankruptcy, the liquidator is entitled to request the Court to rescind the following activities concerning the debtor’s property:Transferring property free of charge; orTransferring property at obviously unreasonable low prices; orProviding property security for the debts that originally have no property security; orPaying in advance the debt undue; orWaiving creditsThe liquidator is entitled to recover the unusual income that the directors, supervisors and senior executives of the debtor have obtained by taking advantages of their authority of office and recover the enterprise property that they appropriate in the same manner.

 If you have any question regarding the topic discussed above, please contact our partners for further assistance. 

Anna Chan
Partner of Oldham, Li & Nie

anna.chan@oln-law.com

Xiaosu Zhu
Partner of Watson & Band

xiaosu.zhu@watsonband.com 

Oldham, Li & Nie Solicitors and Watson & Band have entered into formal association in 2020. The new Association will strengthen OLN’s China Legal Service Network and Watson & Band’s international practice, allowing the Association strategic and direct access to lawyers in different jurisdictions. With a deeper understanding of clients’ needs and behaviour, it will complement the ambitious growth of OLN and Watson & Band to provide high-quality legal services on a global scale. 

Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. Nothing herein shall be construed as Hong Kong or PRC legal advice or any legal advice for that matter to any person. Neither Oldham, Li & Nie nor Watson & Band shall be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the materials contained in this article. Shall you be interested to download this article as a brochure, please click on the following link:  Legal Update: Hong Kong Court Recognizes Application by Shanghai Liquidators

作者:合伙人陈韵祺律师及邝柏瑜律师

朝代信托是一种日益流行的工具，其可将家庭的财富传递给下一代。顾名思义，朝代信托之信托资产旨在世代相传。与直接向您的孩子馈赠相反，朝代信托可以让您于在世时（甚至在过世后）控制您的孩子们如何以及何时可以接收、享受和使用家庭资产。它亦可以确保某些重要资产在不同世代中被保留。如果您有这样的打算，您则可以考虑设立朝代信托。

尽管有「朝代信托」的标签，它的特质、用途、及在设立有关信托前须要考虑的因素与一般信托几乎相同。

建立信托有何好处？

如被正确地使用，信托是一种有用的工具，其有多种用途，包括遗产承继计划、税务筹划、在发生婚姻纠纷时保护资产、以及保护资产免因债权人对资产授予人作出的索赔而受到威胁。

a) 遗产承继之捷径

信托可以帮助绕过原本繁琐且耗时的遗嘱认证书申请程序。举例来说，如果没有信托，第一代家族成员的遗产之遗嘱认证申请过程（于简单的遗产案件）须要花费数月，至（于复杂的遗产案件）数年不等（这对于高净值资产人士来说并不罕见）。更甚的是，在某些司法管辖区（例如美国），死者的资产在其去世后会被冻结，直到法院授予遗嘱认证书为止。假设完成遗嘱认证书申请程序需要一个月的时间，而有关遗产的银行帐户有大量现金因而被冻结，这些现金则在法院授予遗嘱认证书前无法被注入家族企业。如果家族企业在此时需要紧急现金流或临时流动资金，则可能会发生问题。

b) 遗产承继计划

当家族成员去世后有资产和/或家族企业需要被管理时，信托可以减少家族成员因家族继承和业务控制权而卷入丑陋的家族争产之风险。设立信托后，资产授予人可以在其在世时将资产转移到信托中，并通过意愿书明确规定应如何管理有关资产和家族企业，及委托可靠的受托人来管理信托。当资产授予人去世后，受托人仍然可以及时控制信托中的家族资产，并根据授予人的意愿分配给受益人。

c) 税务筹划

信托（尤其是当受益人居住在高税率，并会就受益人全球收入或资产征收高额税款的地方之情况下），可被用作税务筹划工具。通过设立信托，资产授予人可以精心设计其信托以让受益人只在信托分配时才被征税，并且可以根据资产授予人和受益人的须求量身定制。

设立信托对于受益人的其中一个重要好处是，受益人可以管理何时被分配信托资产，从而控制何时被支付应税收入。从这个意义上说，受益人可「延迟」其缴税的责任。话虽如此，资产授予人仍然需要留意某些司法管辖区就分配信托的任何累计净收入时可能征收的任何「回转税」和惩罚性的利息费用（例如，将境外非委托人信托的累计净收入分配给美国的受益人）。

在某些司法管辖区，某些信托结构可助受益人节省大量税款。如果您有兴趣了解更多信息，请到：–

Emigration from Hong Kong: The Importance of Pre-Migration Tax Planning (1)

Emigration from Hong Kong to Australia: The Importance of Pre-Migration Tax Planning (2)

Emigration from Hong Kong: The Importance of Pre-Migration Tax Planning (3)

Emigration from Hong Kong: The Importance of Pre-Migration Tax Planning (4)

Emigration from Hong Kong to Singapore: The Importance of Migration Tax Planning (5)

d) 离婚时就信托的处理

如果您正经历一段艰难的婚姻，您可能会担心您的资产会否被即将和离的配偶摊分，从而令对子女的经济资助不足。因此，有些人可能会将其资产注入信托，以避免其在婚姻诉讼中进行资产分配时被视为婚内资产。完善及精心设计的信托契约可保护信托资产免受婚姻诉讼中之辅助救济索偿威胁，并可以很有效地达到这一目的。

但是，在某些情况下，如果专业人士没有仔细地草拟信托文件之条款，法院则可能会宣布有关信托的设立无效。在Kan Lai Kwan v Otto Poon [2014] 6 HKC 111一案中，该信托基金被打判定为被包括在和离配偶的婚内资产中，因为有关信托文件的起草表示其所谓的受益人（案件中的女儿）实际上没有在信托基金中拥有固定的实益权益：受托人通常会遵从资产授予人的指示，因此受托人对信托资产没有充分的管理。前人案例已指出了各种可令信托被视为「非实质信托」的陷阱（像Otto Poon一案中发生的情况一样），资产授予人及其法律顾问应小心这些陷阱。

e) 从债权人对资产授予人作出的索赔保护资产

设立信托亦是保护资产免受恶意索赔的有效方法。假设信托已被妥当地设立，即使在资产授予人破产的情况下，信托资产也不会受到债权人的索赔影响。

但是，应注意的是，任何资产的处置（包括信托资产）都可能会受到相关当地破产规则中的退还机制之规限。例如在香港，《破产条例》（第6章）、《公司（清盘及杂项规定）条例》（第32章）及《物业转易及财产条例》（第219章）规定了在某些情况下清盘人有权收回某些非常规交易之交易金额，例如，如果这种资产处置发生在破产或清盘程序开始之前的特定时间范围内。

什么时候应该建立信托？

在您规划您的遗产分配时为了下一代或未来世代的利益建立信托并隔离某些资产是一个好主意。

在现今香港，移民到其他司法管辖区是一种流行的选择。如果您的目的地国家实施高税收制度，您则可以考虑设立信托来管理您的税务事宜。例如，就香港人热门的移民目的地之一的加拿大，其进取的逃税法大大限制了税务规划的空间。但是，如果离岸信托设立得宜，则根据加拿大的税收制度，有关的全球收入可能无需被征税。您可以参考我们的文章系列「从香港移民：在移民前筹划税务的重要性」读取有关详细信息。

Emigration from Hong Kong: The Importance of Pre-Migration Tax Planning (1)

Emigration from Hong Kong to Australia: The Importance of Pre-Migration Tax Planning (2)

Emigration from Hong Kong: The Importance of Pre-Migration Tax Planning (3)

Emigration from Hong Kong: The Importance of Pre-Migration Tax Planning (4)

Emigration from Hong Kong to Singapore: The Importance of Migration Tax Planning (5)

谁应该担任受托人？

选择受托人是一项重要并不可随便的决定。受托人肩负着责任，而他们的职责亦经常受到法例约束（例如在香港）。以下是一些常见的受托人：–

a) 朋友和家人：大多数人喜欢让其朋友和家人作受托人，但却可能没有考虑他们是否有资格在管理信托资产时作出财务决定及他们的寿命是有限的。

b) 专业受托人：出于谨慎的考虑，与朋友和家人相比，这可能是一个更合适的选择。在香港，专业受托人必须根据《打击洗钱及恐怖分子资金筹集条例》（香港法例第615章）就信托和公司服务提供者规定的新许可制度获得许可，并受到法例的管制以确保专业受托人有管理资产的资格。

c) 离岸信托公司：在设立离岸信托的情况下，（例如在开曼群岛或英属维尔京群岛设立离岸信托），则可选择离岸信托公司。但是，与在岸信托公司相比，聘用离岸托管公司的成本相对地高。对于关注成本的个人而言，相对较高的设置成本和年度维护费用可能是一个问题。

d) 银行：许多银行也提供受托人服务。但是，与信托公司相比，银行在接受信托资产方面可尤其小心，并且有时只能容许资产授予人将银行自己发行的理财产品、定期存款、或房地产作为信托资产。银行尤其通常不愿资产授予人以私人公司的股份作为信托资产，部分原原因是由于近来出于打击洗钱目的而对银行在接受资金或新客户方面的尽职调查之要求日益严格。因此，希望将家族企业放入信托结构的商人不偏好选择银行为受托人。

e) 其他专业人员：为您的业务工作过的律师和会计师也可以担任受托人。由于他们深入了解您的业务，因此他们可以为您的业务提供定制服务，并量身定制必要的信托文件。如果您偏好比机构受托人有更大的灵活性的受托人，这则是一个优点。

在确定在哪个司法管辖区成立朝代信托之前，资产授予人应考虑什么？

您可能听说过在泽西岛，英属维尔京群岛，根西岛和其他离岸司法管辖区成立信托，但是资产授予人应如何在众多司法管辖区中进行选择？实际上，您必须考虑多种因素：–

a. 资产授予人可保留的权力

资产授予人须将其信托资产转让方可成立有效的信托。不过，在许多情况下，资产授予人会希望保留管理信托的权力，以确保信托资产被适当维护和增长。因此，如资产授予人打算在其信托保留任何权力，则有须要考虑候选司法管辖区的法规，以确保有关法规可以允许他就有关信托保留权力。就香港的法例而言，《受托人条例》（第29章）特别容许资产授予人在其信托保留权力（通常包括投资和资产管理的权力）。但是，要注意的是，鉴于Otto Poon案例中所述的法律原则，信托文件中有关资产授予人所保留之权力的任何条款均应被谨慎起草，以免有关信托被宣布为「非实质信托」。

b. 针对财产恒继规则

「禁止财产恒继规则」 [1]为一项古老的普通法原则，其禁止可能永久存在的信托。该原则规定，信托仅在一定年限内有效，其具体取决于不同司法管辖区的规则。为了保护子孙后代的财富并进行长期和策略性的财富规划，希望建立朝代信托的资产授予人应注意不同司法管辖区在财产恒继规则上的法律立场，并可能需要避开仍然施行此普通法规则的司法管辖区。例如在香港，《财产恒继及收益累积条例》（第257章）就于2013年12月1日或以后设立的信托废除了针对财产恒继及过剩收益累积的规则。这对希望设立高价值朝代信托的资产授予人具有一定吸引力。

c. 受托人的法定职责

受托人负有源自普通法的谨慎责任。以前的案例亦规定了受托人对受益人的受信责任之范围。在某些司法管辖区中，此责任已被编入法例，以更好地保护信托资产和受益人，例如限制受托人不可免责于某些责任，这有利于受益人并被资产授予人所偏好。

在香港，受托人的责任和权力已被编入《受托人条例》（第29章）。 《受托人条例》要求受托人就其拥有或被认为拥有的任何特殊知识或经验，和（如果要求受托人是专业受托人）就其被合理预期拥有的任何特殊知识或经验，采取合理谨慎及技巧。这项法定责任阐明了受托人职责的范围，并为有关职责的预期标准提供了更清晰的指导，从而维护了资产授予人和受益人的利益。

d. 受益人罢免受托人的权利

受益人罢免受托人的权利是制衡受托人权力的关键。在其被编成法规的情况下，它可以成为对信托管理不满的受益人罢免受托人的重要武器。法规可提供比起启动法院程序简单的罢免受托人程序，这通常可以节省时间和成本。

在香港，《受托人条例》赋予受益人权利，以在一定条件下通过书面罢免指示要求受托人从信托管理中卸任[2]。这种机制提供了一定程度的灵活性，并消除了信托对法院酌情决定权的依赖，而这机制在某些其他司法管辖区中并不存在。例如，新加坡并没有相类法例允许受益人通过指示将受托人罢免，因此受益人必须向法院申请命令以取代受托人。

e. 受托人转授其权力的权力

根据普通法，除非获得授权，否则受托人有责任亲自行事，不得委托他人行使其职能。但是，某些受托人可能偏好指定代理在信托资产管理中提供专业帮助。

受托人难以委托基金经理来管理信托投资组合是香港信托法在过去最令人不满意的方面之一。现在，香港信托法赋予受托人更大的酌处权，使受托人可以以授权书将其某些职责委托他人（最多12个月）。话虽如此，受托人的某些核心职责，包括向受益人的分配，是否应从资本或收入中付款，新受托人的任命以及进一步委托代理等决定仍然不能被授权。

f. 纠纷解决

这因素在没有纠纷的时候常常被资产授予人忽略。当有关人等就信托产生争议时，例如文件是否可披露，有关信托的争议解决可因其适用的司法管辖区而引致麻烦。就离岸信托而言，即使所有受益人和受托人都身在香港，有关纠纷仍可能必须在另一端世界进行。因此，选择具有可预测和可靠的司法系统的司法管辖区作为有关信托的适用的司法管辖区同样重要。以香港为例，香港有一套完善的司法制度，其遵循普通法制度和衡平法。此外，香港的信托受到包括《受托人条例》和《财产恒继及收益累积条例》的法例规管。凭借健全的监管环境和成熟的法律体系，在香港成立的信托所引起的纠纷可以根据既定的法律原则妥善解决。

g. 行政费，税务和双重税收协定

初始设置成本以及年度维护费用将增加信托的费用。因此，资产授予人还必须考虑候选的适用司法管辖区是否具有对信托有利的税收制度，以使该信托可以就由信托业务产生的股息、利息和特许权使用费等享受较低的税率。双重税收协定提供的豁免可帮助信托避免其因其收入和资产被国际性地双重征税，并节省信托的成本及费用。

香港因实行有利的税收制度而享誉世界。股息收入、银行存款收入、某些类型的非银行利息和债券利息在香港均被免税。外国房地产的租金和收益、资本收益和外国来源的利润也被免税。拥有外国资产的香港居民信托可以将此类资产的收入和利润汇至有关信托，而无需在香港缴税。此外，香港有与其他司法管辖区订立广泛的双重税收协定网络。如果某些司法管辖区已与香港签订了双重税收协定，则有关信托收入不会在有关收入产生的司法管辖区和有关人士所居住的司法管辖区中被重复征税（称为「来源居住区矛盾」）。这有助于打破信托投资的跨境流动之税务障碍，而香港的信托可以要求就双重税收协定从海外税收中减免税收。

朝代信托可如何被质疑，及如何避免它们？

从Otto Poon一案可以看出，在某些情况下，朝代信托中的信托资产可能被视为配偶的收入，从而被包括于婚内资产内。根据香港《婚姻诉讼和财产条例》（第192章）第17条的规定，如果有关资产的处置在配偶提出撤销有关资产的处置的申请日期的3年内发生， 法院则可推定有关资产的处置是为了打击申请人要求经济济助的申索而作出的。

另一个可质疑朝代信托的情况为，原本的信托已被终结，并随后被「重新设立」为新的信托（即原本信托的资产被注入新的信托，因而修改了其的使用或应用）。

因此，为避免有人对朝代信托提出质疑，资产授予者应仔细考虑信托契约中的分配条款，适当地考虑朝代信托的设立时间，并避免某些可能构成「非实质信托」的陷阱。资产授予者亦最好清楚地说明受托人在管理信托资产中的权力，以减少与此类管理有关的纠纷，因为这类纠纷有时可能导致信托的重新设立。

结论

鉴于香港健全的司法制度和对信托有利的税收待遇，其为设立和运作朝代信托的理想司法管辖区。香港亦赋予资产授予人、受托人和受益人相当多的权利、权力和保护，以更好地管理朝代信托。只要妥善地设立信托结构来避免有关信托被质疑，家庭财富就可以为后代子孙得以保存。

如果您对上述文章有任何疑问，请通过anna.chan@oln-law.com与我们的合伙人陈韵祺律师联络，或通过barbara.kwong@oln-law.com 与我们的邝柏瑜律师联系，以获取进一步的帮助。

免责声明：本文仅供参考。本文中的任何内容均不应被解释为对香港的法律建议或对任何人的任何法律建议。对于因本材料而对任何人导致的任何损失和/或损害，高李严律师行概不负责。

---

[1]   「禁止財產恆繼規則」要求未來的信託利益（即不會立即生效的利益）必須確定在有關期限內（即恆繼期）授予。

[2] 《受託人條例》第40A條。