泰和泰研析 | 新加坡高等法院澄清有关委任接管人的原则

引言

In La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co Ltd v Zhang Lan and others and another matter [2022] SGHC 278, the Singapore High Court clarified the principles in relation to the appointment of a receiver in aid of enforcement of a judgment.

La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Company Limited与张兰一案（判决编号[2022] SGHC 278）中，新加坡高等法院澄清了有关委任接管人的原则。本文仅就委任接管人的原则进行阐述：

一、

BACKGROUND 背景

Parties:「各方当事人」

The plaintiffs, La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Company Limited and La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Group Holdings Limited (both are limited liability companies incorporated in Cayman Islands), were the judgment creditors of Madam Zhang Lan (“1st Defendant”, or “Mdm Zhang”), Grand Lan Holdings Group (BVI) Limited (“2ndDefendant”), and Qiao Jiang Lan Development Limited (“3rdDefendant”) under two Hong Kong judgments (“HK Judgments”) dated 20 May 2020. The HK Judgement recognised and enforced two partial awards on liability and quantum rendered by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission on 28 April 2019.

本案原告为La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Company Limited（以下简称为LDV公司）及La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Group Holdings Limited（以下简称为LDV Group）。LDV公司与LDV Group这两家公司均为开满群岛注册成立的有限责任公司。

本案三名被告为：

第一被告：张兰（以下简称第一被告/张女士）；

第二被告：Grand Lan Holdings Group (BVI) Limited；

第三被告：Qiao Jiang Lan Development Limited。

本案的三名被告均为香港法院在两份日期为2020年5月20日的判决（下称“香港判决”）中所确认的债务人。该香港判决部分承认并执行了日期为2019年4月28日的中国贸仲的仲裁裁决中的涉及债权与争议数额的裁决内容。

The awards under the HK Judgments concerned the plaintiffs’ acquisition of shares in companies beneficially owned by Mdm Zhang (1st Defendant) (“Acquisition”). Part of the amount received for the Acquisition was transferred to Success Elegant Trading Limited (“4th Defendant” or “SETL”)’s bank accounts (the “Bank Accounts”). 

香港判决所承认的贸仲的裁决涉及原告收购张女士作为受益人所持有的公司股份（下称“收购”）。收购获得的部分对价已被张女士转让至离岸家族信托壳公司Success Elegant Trading Limited（以下简称为第四被告或“SETL”）的银行账户。

Relationships:「各方关系」

Mdm Zhang wholly owns the 2nd Defendant and 3rd Defendant, which are companies incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”). SETL, being a BVI company as well, is incorporated on 2 January 2014 with Mdm Zhang being the owner of the sole share in the capital of SETL upon its incorporation. Mdm Zhang remained as the owner of the said sole share from the point of SETL’s incorporation until 4 June 2014 when she transferred the relevant sole share to AsiaTrust Limited (“AsiaTrust”), being the trustee of the Success Elegant Trust, by way of a Deed of Addition of Assets to the Success Elegant Trust. AsiaTrust remains the owner of this sole share. Mdm Zhang was appointed the sole director of SETL on 12 February 2014 but was replaced by ATP Directors Limited, an affiliate of AsiaTrust, on 3 March 2015.

第二被告和第三被告均为在英属圣维京群岛公司（BVI）成立的公司，张女士系两公司的全资控股人。2014年1月2日，张女士作为唯一股东在英属圣维京群岛设立了SETL，直至2014年6月4日，张女士将其持有的SETL的所有股份通过签署额外资产信托契约的方式转让至亚洲信托（下称“AsiaTrust”）的名下。AsiaTrust是Success Elegant Trust (下称“SET 信托”)的专业受托人。2014年2月12日，张女士被任命为SETL的唯一董事，随后在2015年3月3日AsiaTrust的关联公司ATP Directors Limited取代了张女士成为了SETL公司的唯一董事。

The Success Elegant Trust is a family trust settled by Mdm Zhang for the benefit of her son, Mr Wang Xiaofei and his children and remoter issue. The declaration of trust is dated 3 June 2014.

SET信托是张女士以汪先生及其子嗣作为受益人设立的家族信托，具体信托声明的日期为2014年6月3日。

HK Judgments registered in Singapore:「在新加坡登记注册的香港判决」

The plaintiffs obtained orders to register the HK Judgments in Singapore (“Singapore Orders”). The plaintiffs sought to enforce the Singapore Orders via the appointment of receivers over the moneys and securities held in the Bank Accounts.

鉴于本案原告已获得在新加坡登记香港判决的新加坡注册令，原告试图通过委任银行账户中现金和证券的第三方接管人的方式来执行该新加坡注册令。

While the SETL (4th Defendant) was not a judgment debtor under the HK Judgments or the Singapore Orders, the plaintiffs contended that it was just and equitable for the court to appoint receivers by way of equitable execution over the Bank Accounts as:
由于SETL（即本案第四被告）并非香港判决或新加坡冻结令下的经判决债务人，原告方主张通过衡平法原则执行有关银行账户的方式委任第三方接管人。原告主张的具体理由概述如下：

• (a) Mdm Zhang (1stDefendant) was the beneficial owner of the assets in the Bank Accounts by reason of a resulting trust; and

  根据回归信托的法理，张女士（即本案第一被告）在事实上为有关的银行账户中资产的实际受益所有人；

• (b)In the alternative, Mdm Zhang (1st Defendant) exercised a level of control over the assets in the Bank Accounts tantamount to ownership.

  如果上述理由(a)不成立，那么张女士（即本案第一被告）对银行账户中的资产行使了相当于所有权的实际控制权。

二、

KEY ISSUES 关键问题

Issue 1: Whether in law receivers may be appointed over property in which the judgment debtor has no equitable interest but does have effective control

是否可以对债务人没有衡平法权益但具有有效控制权的财产指定法律接管人？

The Singapore court found that in a situation where a judgment debtor has no equitable interest but has effective control over property, a receiver may not be appointed over said property.

新加坡法院认为，在判决确定的债务人没有衡平法权益但对财产具有有效控制权的情况下，不得指定接管人接管上述财产。

The Singapore court explained that a receiver is appointed to stand in the place of the debtor and do those things which the debtor should, as a matter of good conscience, have done in order to satisfy the judgment debt. However, this cannot extend to matters requiring the cooperation of a third party not bound to obey the debtor. Without a right to do so, a receiver will not be able to compel compliance with any instruction he may give in the place of the judgment debtor, and the third party will be free to withhold cooperation.

新加坡法院认为，接管人作为债务人的替代应当基于道德承担债务人应当履行的义务。然而，因第三方无需服从债务人，上述情形不应扩展到需第三方配合的事项。因此，接管人也无法强迫代替债务人作出的指令得到其他人的遵守，且第三方可以拒绝协助配合。

Issue 2: Whether Mdm Zhang (1stDefendant) beneficially owns the money in the Bank Accounts

张女士是否实际拥有银行账户中资金?

The Court found that Mdm Zhang (1stDefendant) was the beneficial owner of the money in the Bank Accounts as:

法院认为，张女士就这些资金保留了实益权益，享有完全的控制权，具体理由为：

• (a) Mdm Zhang had transferred moneys from the Bank Accounts for her own purposes without complaint from  SETL (4thDefendant) – the Singapore court inferred that Mdm Zhang had considered herself free to make use of the moneys in the Bank Accounts and further inferred that this was because she had never intended to give the moneys away to SETL  and thus remained the beneficial owner of the moneys;

  张女士从银行账户转移资金供自己使用，且第四被告SETL并未表示反对，新加坡法院由此认定张女士可自由支配银行账户中的资金，并进一步认定其从未打算将资金交给SETL，因此张女士仍然是资金的受益所有人；

• (b) Mdm Zhang’s haste in transferring moneys out of one of the SETL’s Bank Accounts after she had notice of the freezing orders – the Singapore court inferred that Mdm Zhang did so precisely because she considered the moneys in it to be her own and so at risk from the plaintiffs’ claims if she did not take steps to move those moneys; and

  在收到冻结令的通知后，张女士匆忙将资金从SETL的银行账户中转出——新加坡法院据此认定，正是由于张女士认为银行账户内资金归自己所有，如果不采取措施转移资金，将面临原告方索赔的风险，才会进行如此匆忙的资产转移；

  
  

• (c) Mdm Zhang’s then-solicitor’s confirmation on her behalf that she maintained one of SETL (4thDefendant)’s Bank Accounts at that time.

  张女士当时委托的律师也特此确认，即张女士当时仍持有并维护SETL的银行账户。

三、

CONCLUSIONS 结论

The Singapore Court found it just and convenient to make the receivership orders as:

基于以下原因，新加坡法院最终做出财产接管令：

• (a) the class of assets in this case (i.e. moneys held in bank accounts) is property that is amenable to execution at law if the bank account is in the name of the judgment debtor;

  如果银行账户在判决确定的债务人名下，则本案中的资产（即银行账户中的资金）即为可依法执行的财产；

• (b) the fact that the moneys are owned beneficially by Mdm Zhang (1st Defendant) but are not in her name raises an obvious difficulty to the use of execution processes at law such as a garnishee order; and

  张女士在事实上是该资金的实际受益控制人，但鉴于该资金不在其名下，这一情形为法律执行程序（如案外债务人令）带来显著不便；

• (c) the appointment of receivers over the Bank Accounts will enable recourse by the judgment creditors to those moneys to satisfy the judgments in a manner that is cost-effective and not unduly burdensome.

  任命银行账户接管人，债权人能够通过性价比较高、负担较轻的方式使判决得以履行，且能够对款项主张追索权。

郭婧婧  律师

合伙人

业务领域：跨境业务、并购重组、政府与公共事务

程地昌  律师

合伙人

业务领域：公司商务、争议解决

李希禹  律师

业务领域：民商事重大争议解决、公司治理、涉外

Dr. Qiu Yang

Director

Insights Law LLC (A Singapore Law Practice)

近期文章推荐

ARTICAL