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: 合夥人陳韻祺律師及鄺柏瑜律師

朝代信託是一種日益流行的工具，其可將家庭的財富傳遞給下一代。顧名思義，朝代信託之信託資產旨在世代相傳。與直接向您的孩子饋贈相反，朝代信託可以讓您於在世時（甚至在過世後）控制您的孩子們如何以及何時可以接收、享受和使用家庭資產。它亦可以確保某些重要資產在不同世代中被保留。如果您有這樣的打算，您則可以考慮設立朝代信託。

儘管有「朝代信託」的標籤，它的特質、用途、及在設立有關信託前須要考慮的因素與一般信託幾乎相同。

建立信託有何好處？

如被正確地使用，信託是一種有用的工具，其有多種用途，包括遺產承繼計劃、稅務籌劃、在發生婚姻糾紛時保護資產、以及保護資產免因債權人對資產授予人作出的索賠而受到威脅。

1. 遺產承繼之捷徑

信託可以幫助繞過原本繁瑣且耗時的遺囑認證書申請程序。舉例來說，如果沒有信託，第一代家族成員的遺產之遺囑認證申請過程（於簡單的遺產案件）須要花費數月，至（於複雜的遺產案件）數年不等（這對於高淨值資產人士來說並不罕見）。更甚的是，在某些司法管轄區（例如美國），死者的資產在其去世後會被凍結，直到法院授予遺囑認證書為止。假設完成遺囑認證書申請程序需要一個月的時間，而有關遺產的銀行帳戶有大量現金因而被凍結，這些現金則在法院授予遺囑認證書前無法被注入家族企業。如果家族企業在此時需要緊急現金流或臨時流動資金，則可能會發生問題。

2. 遺產承繼計劃

當家族成員去世後有資產和/或家族企業需要被管理時，信託可以減少家族成員因家族繼承和業務控制權而捲入醜陋的家族爭產之風險。設立信託後，資產授予人可以在其在世時將資產轉移到信託中，並通過意願書明確規定應如何管理有關資產和家族企業，及委託可靠的受託人來管理信託。當資產授予人去世後，受託人仍然可以及時控制信託中的家族資產，並根據授予人的意願分配給受益人。

3. 稅務籌劃

信託（尤其是當受益人居住在高稅率，並會就受益人全球收入或資產徵收高額稅款的地方之情況下），可被用作稅務籌劃工具。通過設立信託，資產授予人可以精心設計其信託以讓受益人只在信託分配時才被徵稅，並且可以根據資產授予人和受益人的須求量身定制。

設立信託對於受益人的其中一個重要好處是，受益人可以管理何時被分配信託資產，從而控制何時被支付應稅收入。從這個意義上說，受益人可「延遲」其繳稅的責任。話雖如此，資產授予人仍然需要留意某些司法管轄區就分配信託的任何累計淨收入時可能徵收的任何「回轉稅」和懲罰性的利息費用 （例如，將境外非委托人信托的累計淨收入分配給美國的受益人）。

在某些司法管轄區，某些信託結構可助受益人節省大量稅款。如果您有興趣了解更多信息，請到：–

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)

4. 離婚時就信託的處理

如果您正經歷一段艱難的婚姻，您可能會擔心您的資產會否被即將和離的配偶攤分，從而令對子女的經濟資助不足。因此，有些人可能會將其資產注入信託，以避免其在婚姻訴訟中進行資產分配時被視為婚内資產。完善及精心設計的信託契約可保護信託資產免受婚姻訴訟中之輔助救濟索償威脅，並可以很有效地達到這一目的。

但是，在某些情況下，如果專業人士沒有仔細地草擬信託文件之條款，法院則可能會宣布有關信託的設立無效。在Kan Lai Kwan v Otto Poon [2014] 6 HKC 111一案中，該信託基金被打判定為被包括在和離配偶的婚内資產中，因為有關信託文件的起草表示其所謂的受益人（案件中的女兒）實際上沒有在信託基金中擁有固定的實益權益：受託人通常會遵從資產授予人的指示，因此受託人對信託資產沒有充分的管理。前人案例已指出了各種可令信託被視為「非實質信託」的陷阱（像Otto Poon一案中發生的情況一樣），資產授予人及其法律顧問應小心這些陷阱。

5. 從債權人對資產授予人作出的索賠保護資產

設立信託亦是保護資產免受惡意索賠的有效方法。假設信託已被妥當地設立，即使在資產授予人破產的情況下，信託資產也不會受到債權人的索賠影響。

但是，應注意的是，任何資產的處置（包括信託資產）都可能會受到相關當地破產規則中的退還機制之規限。例如在香港，《破產條例》（第6章）、《公司（清盤及雜項規定）條例》（第32章）及《物業轉易及財產條例》（第219章）規定了在某些情況下清盤人有權收回某些非常規交易之交易金額，例如，如果這種資產處置發生在破產或清盤程序開始之前的特定時間範圍內。

什麼時候應該建立信託？

在您規劃您的遺產分配時為了下一代或未來世代的利益建立信託並隔離某些資產是一個好主意。

在現今香港，移民到其他司法管轄區是一種流行的選擇。如果您的目的地國家實施高稅收制度，您則可以考慮設立信託來管理您的稅務事宜。例如，就香港人熱門的移民目的地之一的加拿大，其進取的逃税法大大限制了稅務規劃的空間。但是，如果離岸信託設立得宜，則根據加拿大的稅收制度，有關的全球收入可能無需被徵稅。您可以參考我們的文章系列「從香港移民：在移民前籌劃稅務的重要性」讀取有關詳細信息。

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)

誰應該擔任受託人？

選擇受託人是一項重要並不可隨便的決定。受託人肩負著責任，而他們的職責亦經常受到法例約束（例如在香港）。以下是一些常見的受託人：–

1. 朋友和家人：大多數人喜歡讓其朋友和家人作受託人，但卻可能沒有考慮他們是否有資格在管理信託資產時作出財務決定及他們的壽命是有限的。
2. 專業受託人：出於謹慎的考慮，與朋友和家人相比，這可能是一個更合適的選擇。在香港，專業受託人必須根據《打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集條例》（香港法例第615章）就信託和公司服務提供者規定的新許可制度獲得許可，並受到法例的管制以確保專業受託人有管理資產的資格。
3. 離岸信託公司：在設立離岸信託的情況下，（例如在開曼群島或英屬維爾京群島設立離岸信託），則可選擇離岸信託公司。但是，與在岸信託公司相比，聘用離岸託管公司的成本相對地高。對於關注成本的個人而言，相對較高的設置成本和年度維護費用可能是一個問題。
4. 銀行：許多銀行也提供受託人服務。但是，與信託公司相比，銀行在接受信託資產方面可尤其小心，並且有時只能容許資產授予人將銀行自己發行的理財產品、定期存款、或房地產作為信託資產。銀行尤其通常不願資產授予人以私人公司的股份作為信託資產，部分原因是由於近來出於打擊洗錢目的而對銀行在接受資金或新客戶方面的盡職調查之要求日益嚴格。因此，希望將家族企業放入信託結構的商人不偏好選擇銀行為受託人。
5. 其他專業人員：為您的業務工作過的律師和會計師也可以擔任受託人。由於他們深入了解您的業務，因此他們可以為您的業務提供定制服務，並量身定制必要的信託文件。如果您偏好比機構受託人有更大的靈活性的受託人，這則是一個優點。

在確定在哪個司法管轄區成立朝代信託之前，資產授予人應考慮什麼？

您可能聽說過在澤西島，英屬維爾京群島，根西島和其他離岸司法管轄區成立信託，但是資產授予人應如何在眾多司法管轄區中進行選擇？實際上，您必須考慮多種因素：–

1. 資產授予人可保留的權力

資產授予人須將其信託資產轉讓方可成立有效的信託。不過，在許多情況下，資產授予人會希望保留管理信託的權力，以確保信託資產被適當維護和增長。因此，如資產授予人打算在其信託保留任何權力，則有須要考慮候選司法管轄區的法規，以確保有關法規可以允許他就有關信託保留權力。就香港的法例而言，《受託人條例》（第29章）特別容許資產授予人在其信託保留權力（通常包括投資和資產管理的權力）。但是，要注意的是，鑑於Otto Poon案例中所述的法律原則，信託文件中有關資產授予人所保留之權力的任何條款均應被謹慎起草，以免有關信託被宣佈為「非實質信託」。

2. 針對財產恆繼規則

「禁止財產恆繼規則」 [1]為一項古老的普通法原則，其禁止可能永久存在的信託。該原則規定，信託僅在一定年限內有效，其具體取決於不同司法管轄區的規則。為了保護子孫後代的財富並進行長期和策略性的財富規劃，希望建立朝代信託的資產授予人應注意不同司法管轄區在財產恆繼規則上的法律立場，並可能需要避開仍然施行此普通法規則的司法管轄區。例如在香港，《財產恆繼及收益累積條例》（第257章）就於2013年12月1日或以後設立的信託廢除了針對財產恆繼及過剩收益累積的規則。這對希望設立高價值朝代信託的資產授予人具有一定吸引力。

3. 受託人的法定職責

受託人負有源自普通法的謹慎責任。以前的案例亦規定了受託人對受益人的受信責任之範圍。在某些司法管轄區中，此責任已被編入法例，以更好地保護信託資產和受益人，例如限制受託人不可免責於某些責任，這有利於受益人並被資產授予人所偏好。

在香港，受託人的責任和權力已被編入《受託人條例》（第29章）。《受託人條例》要求受託人就其擁有或被認為擁有的任何特殊知識或經驗，和（如果要求受託人是專業受託人）就其被合理預期擁有的任何特殊知識或經驗，採取合理謹慎及技巧。這項法定責任闡明了受託人職責的範圍，並為有關職責的預期標準提供了更清晰的指導，從而維護了資產授予人和受益人的利益。

4. 受益人罷免受託人的權利

受益人罷免受託人的權利是制衡受託人權力的關鍵。在其被編成法規的情況下，它可以成為對信託管理不滿的受益人罷免受託人的重要武器。法規可提供比起啟動法院程序簡單的罷免受託人程序，這通常可以節省時間和成本。

在香港，《受託人條例》賦予受益人權利，以在一定條件下通過書面罷免指示要求受託人從信託管理中卸任[2]。這種機制提供了一定程度的靈活性，並消除了信託對法院酌情決定權的依賴，而這機制在某些其他司法管轄區中並不存在。例如，新加坡並沒有相類法例允許受益人通過指示將受託人罷免，因此受益人必須向法院申請命令以取代受託人。

5. 受託人轉授其權力的權力

根據普通法，除非獲得授權，否則受託人有責任親自行事，不得委託他人行使其職能。但是，某些受託人可能偏好指定代理在信託資產管理中提供專業幫助。

受託人難以委託基金經理來管理信託投資組合是香港信託法在過去最令人不滿意的方面之一。現在，香港信託法賦予受託人更大的酌處權，使受託人可以以授權書將其某些職責委託他人（最多12個月）。話雖如此，受託人的某些核心職責，包括向受益人的分配，是否應從資本或收入中付款，新受託人的任命以及進一步委託代理等決定仍然不能被授權。

6. 糾紛解決

這因素在沒有糾紛的時候常常被資產授予人忽略。當有關人等就信託產生爭議時，例如文件是否可披露，有關信託的爭議解決可因其適用的司法管轄區而引致麻煩。就離岸信託而言，即使所有受益人和受託人都身在香港，有關糾紛仍可能必須在另一端世界進行。因此，選擇具有可預測和可靠的司法系統的司法管轄區作為有關信託的適用的司法管轄區同樣重要。以香港為例，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，香港的信託受到包括《受託人條例》和《財產恆繼及收益累積條例》的法例規管。憑藉健全的監管環境和成熟的法律體系，在香港成立的信託所引起的糾紛可以根據既定的法律原則妥善解決。

7.  行政費，稅務和雙重稅收協定

初始設置成本以及年度維護費用將增加信託的費用。因此，資產授予人還必須考慮候選的適用司法管轄區是否具有對信託有利的稅收制度，以使該信託可以就由信託業務產生的股息、利息和特許權使用費等享受較低的稅率。 雙重稅收協定提供的豁免可幫助信託避免其因其收入和資產被國際性地雙重徵稅，並節省信託的成本及費用。

香港因實行有利的稅收制度而享譽世界。股息收入、銀行存款收入、某些類型的非銀行利息和債券利息在香港均被免稅。外國房地產的租金和收益、資本收益和外國來源的利潤也被免稅。擁有外國資產的香港居民信託可以將此類資產的收入和利潤匯至有關信託，而無需在香港繳稅。此外，香港有與其他司法管轄區訂立廣泛的雙重稅收協定網絡。如果某些司法管轄區已與香港簽訂了雙重稅收協定，則有關信託收入不會在有關收入產生的司法管轄區和有關人士所居住的司法管轄區中被重複徵稅（稱為「來源居住區矛盾」）。這有助於打破信託投資的跨境流動之稅務障礙，而香港的信託可以要求就雙重稅收協定從海外稅收中減免稅收。

朝代信託可如何被質疑，及如何避免它們？

從Otto Poon一案可以看出，在某些情況下，朝代信託中的信託資產可能被視為配偶的收入，從而被包括於婚内資產內。根據香港《婚姻訴訟和財產條例》（第192章）第17條的規定，如果有關資產的處置在配偶提出撤銷有關資產的處置的申請日期的3年內發生， 法院則可推定有關資產的處置是為了打擊申請人要求經濟濟助的申索而作出的。

另一個可質疑朝代信託的情況為，原本的信託已被終結，並隨後被「重新設立」為新的信託（即原本信託的資產被注入新的信託，因而修改了其的使用或應用）。

因此，為避免有人對朝代信託提出質疑，資產授予者應仔細考慮信託契約中的分配條款，適當地考慮朝代信託的設立時間，並避免某些可能構成「非實質信託」的陷阱。 資產授予者亦最好清楚地說明受託人在管理信託資產中的權力，以減少與此類管理有關的糾紛，因為這類糾紛有時可能導致信託的重新設立。

結論

鑑於香港健全的司法制度和對信託有利的稅收待遇，其為設立和運作朝代信託的理想司法管轄區。香港亦賦予資產授予人、受託人和受益人相當多的權利、權力和保護，以更好地管理朝代信託。只要妥善地設立信託結構來避免有關信託被質疑，家庭財富就可以為後代子孫得以保存。

如果您對上述文章有任何疑問，請通過anna.chan@oln-law.com與我們的合夥人陳韻祺律師聯絡，或通過barbara.kwong@oln-law.com 與我們的鄺柏瑜律師聯繫，以獲取進一步的幫助。

免責聲明：本文僅供參考。本文中的任何內容均不應被解釋為對香港的法律建議或對任何人的任何法律建議。對於因本材料而對任何人導致的任何損失和/或損害，高李嚴律師行概不負責。

[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。