【作者】 林永法；

【导师】 冯果；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 民商法， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 依据贷款通则规定,贷款制度分成银行自营贷款与委托贷款两种,自营贷款是银行筹集资金借给他人并收取利息。委托贷款则是由委托人指定借款人,委托银行与借款人签订贷款合同。两者在性质上都归类为贷款,但是实际上差异甚大。两种贷款都发生关联交易及利益输送问题,关联交易正常使用可以降低企业交易成本,对于企业经营有利；但是也可能由于代理人问题,因而产生负面的关联交易,产生不公允的利益输送结果,因而对企业不利,但对代理人有利,应该是属于不公允的关联交易,本文称为关联交易的异化。为了切实了解自营贷款和委托贷款产生的关联交易问题,以及提出改善的途径,本文分成以下步骤展开研究工作。第一章论述银行贷款分为自营贷款与委托贷款产生的问题。依据自营贷款与委托贷款的共同法源贷款通则,分析两者的法律性质以及法律责任差异,发现委托贷款的当事人实际上是委托人和借款人。然而在借款人违约不履行还款义务时,受托银行不负履行之责,司法实务也认为委托人没有直接向借款人起诉的权利,因此产生权利主体不能主张自己权利的矛盾。委托贷款在银行的业务性质,经过分析,属于银行的中间业务,亦即银行不负担风险的业务。因此,与自营贷款由银行负担风险的性质不同。委托贷款产生的背景,是因为1996当时对于金融业务的控管,禁止民间借贷的补救措施。自营贷款与委托贷款产生的问题是,委托贷款是贷款的种,但不适用贷款的规制,产生矛盾,委托贷款的委托人是法律上及经济上的权利主体,但是当借款人违约时,委托人没有权利直接主张权利起诉借款人。经研究发现应该是司法实务上的认知问题所致。而且由于委托贷款的利息较高,导致银行自营贷款的资金变相流入委托贷款市场,产生不公允关联交易利益输送(本文称为关联交易的异化)的空间。第二章论述自营贷款与委托贷款关联交易异化问题。主要讨论现代管理趋势讲究专业分工,中大型企业采用专业经理人的经营模式,所有权和经营权分离之后,因为代理人问题而产生关联交易的异化问题。其次讨论关联关系的形成,主要依据控股关系和影响力关系,来决定贷款双方是否具有关联关系。而且并非所有关联交易都有问题,因为正当的关联交易有助于降低企业的交易成本,只有关联交易的异化是法律规制的对象。银行自营贷款与委托贷款的关联异化具有四个特征,一为贷款机会的不公平,二为贷款利率非市场价格,三为关联贷款的动机有特殊目的,如转移利润,租税安排等,四为关联贷款的结果不合理,而导致一方受害。银行自营贷款的关系人交易是指银行与借款人之间的关系,而委托贷款的关系人交易是指委托人和借款人之间的关系,两者有其区别,而且适用法律也不一样,自营贷款的关联交易异化适用银行法规的规制,而委托贷款的关联交易异化适用公司法的规制。论述中并举出自营贷款与委托贷款产生关联交易异化及其影响的案例佐证。第三章现行法规对自营与委托贷款关联交易异化的规制。对自营贷款关联交易的规制主要分为禁止原则,禁止银行对关系人发放信用贷款。平等原则,要求银行发放关系人担保贷款的贷款条件要与非关系人同等条件。总量管制,要求银行对关系人贷款要采总量管制,控制风险。财务信息透明化,要求银行对关系人放款要揭露相关信息供主管机关监管以及社会监督。究责,法律规制对于违反关联交易的贷款要惩处失职人员。现行法规对自营贷款关联交易规制存在的问题,主要有二：一为贷款优先权是否违反贷款条件平等原则,目前法律并未规定。二为地方政府向城商银行融资贷款是否构成关联交易问题,目前法律也未规定。以上关于自营贷款关联交易的规制不适用于委托贷款,因为委托贷款不是银行贷款。对于委托贷款的规制,主要是根据公司法对关联交易的规定。并对违反者要求负担损害赔偿。现行法规对于委托贷款关联交易的规制,存在的问题有四：一为委托人是权利主体但无诉讼权的矛盾问题。二为对于委托贷款违反公司法有关关联交易的规定的处罚过轻,不足产生吓阻作用。三为委托贷款是银行贷款的一种,但不能适用银行贷款的规定,产生矛盾问题。四为贷款通则修订稿删除委托贷款的规定后,公司资金借贷成为关联交易的注意重点,应制定相关法律配套措施问题。第四章美国与台湾地区对银行贷款关联交易异化的规制。主要介绍美国联邦银行法对于关系人的认定,关系人交易的限制以及对于关系人交易的信息揭露义务等规定,其中有关信息揭露的规定具有参考价值。台湾地区银行法对于银行贷款关联交易的规制,大致与美国相同,但是对于银行内部关系人的消费贷款可以不受关联交易的规制,以及对于政府的放款也不受规制,具有参考价值。第五章完善自营贷款与委托贷款关联交易异化规制的途径。主要论述代理人滥权是形成关联交易异化的主因,而代理人滥权的主因是因为交易信息的不对称和不透明,关联交易信息的透明化可以改善自营贷款以及委托贷款的关联交易异化问题。因此,美国和台湾地区对于关联交易信息透明化的详细规定,具有参考价值。而完善自营贷款现行规定存在的问题,可以将贷款优先权列入贷款条件平等的范围,以维持贷款的公平性,也可以考虑将消费贷款排除在关联交易的范围之外。至于完善委托贷款现行规制存在的问题,委托人是经济上主体但不能享有起诉权问题,应该是实务上的曲解,应该导正。对于委托贷款关联交易违反《公司法》的处罚过轻问题,可以参考《商业银行法》酌予加重处罚。至于《贷款通则》修订稿删除委托贷款后,可以让银行贷款与公司资金借贷分别规制,有助于关联交易异化的规制正常化,但可能产生公司可能变相经营贷款业务,因而侵害银行贷款问题,可以参照学者见解、司法判解以及台湾地区公司法对于公司资金借贷的实质规定,订定公司资金借贷的实质条件,以解除公司变相经营贷款业务的疑虑。更多还原

【Abstract】 Both the loans made by the bank with the capital of bank (refers to as bank’s loans) and with the cash of the private owners including the government,enterprises, and individuals (refers to as private loan via bank) consist of the bank loans according to the rules of bank Loans in the P.R.C..The commercial bank may charge the lender the interest under the bank’s loans agreement. The bank may only collect service charge under private loan via bank agreement. They are two different types of loans, but it is confused that the private loan via bank are not applicable to the rulings of the banking law. Nevertheless, both two types of loans cause the problems of irregular related parties transaction of loans.The outlines of this research on the rulings of irregular related parties transaction of loans are as follows:Chapter I:This chapter mainly focuses on the analysis of the difference of legal definition between two kinds of loans, and figure out those related problems behind them. It is figured out that the legal entities of private loans via bank is the private cash owners (i.e. the companies) instead of the banks, although the loan agreements are signed by the banks under the instructions of the private cash owners. The banks are not responsible to the private loans via bank agreements if the borrowers breach the agreements. However, it is conflict that the private cash owners as the legal entities of the private loans via bank agreements are not entitle to lawsuit the borrowers when the borrowers breach the agreements in judge’s practice. I advocate that the private cash owners are entitle to claim when the borrowers breach the agreements.Chapter II:The chapter discusses the issues of irregular related parties’transactions of loans happened in the bank loans and the private loans via bank.The problem of irregular related parties’ transactions involves the definition of related parties. It is the criteria that the one party hold the controlling power or the influence power of the other party consists of the related parties.It is convinced that the characteristics of irregular related parties’ transactions of loans include:the unfair opportunity of applying a loan, the unfair interest rate compared to the un-related parties, the improper purpose of applying a loan, and unreasonable result of the loans. There are many cases show the crisis being made by this kinds of irregular loans.Chapter III:The chapter introduce the principles of the ruling regarding the irregular related parties’transactions of loans include:to forbidden the behavior of related parties’ transactions of loans such as the credit loans made to the related parties, to maintain the equal treatment of loans made to either the related parties or the outsiders, to put the ceiling of amount of the related parties loans, and to request the bank to disclose the information of related parties loans. The current rulings concerning the related parties transaction of bank loans remain two problems:Firstly, is it against the principle of equal treatment if the related parties have more opportunity to make loans than the outsiders. Secondly, should the local government be deemed as the related parties if she applies a loan from the local bank of which the government is the investor. The current rulings concerning the related parties transaction of nonbank loans remain some problems such as:it is irrational that the private cash owners as the legal entities of loans agreements are not entitle to lawsuit the lenders once the lenders breach the agreements, and it is needed to put more serious punishment on the irregular related parties’transactions of nonbank loans.Chapter IV:The chapter introduces the rulings regarding the irregular related parties’ transactions of bank loans in U.S.A. and Taiwan area. It seems that the rulings among P.R.C., U.S.A. and Taiwan area are almost the same. However, it is different that the rulings in Taiwan area allow the loans of consuming made by the bank to the staff. It is also different from P.R.C., that the rulings request the bank to disclose more detail information of related parties transaction of bank loans in U.S.A. as well as Taiwan area.Chapter V:The chapter approaches the improvement of the current problem of the rulings regarding the irregular related parties’transactions of bank loans. It is clear that the abuse of the power happened in the management team of the bank causes the problem of irregular related parties’transactions of bank loans. It is believed that the rulings should ask the bank to disclose more detail of information regarding the related parties’transactions of bank loans in P.R.C., It is also suggested that the rulings allow the loans of consuming made by the bank to the staff, and the local government should not be in the restrictions of the related parties’transactions of bank loans, it is advocated that the private cash owners as the legal entities of loans agreements are entitle to lawsuit the lenders once the lenders breach the agreements, and the rulings should put more serious punishment on the irregular related parties’ transactions of nonbank loans.更多还原