简论拟制信托和不当得利制度

拟制信托制度将"安格鲁沙格逊的保护天使"的角色扮演的淋漓尽致。本文从拟制信托的概念入手,认为拟制信托作为非意定信托,由法官凭借"良心"和相关制度去判断;其次,概要分析同样奠基于公平正义等衡平理论基础上的不当得利制度。最后分析拟制信托和传统大陆法中的不当得利制度的区别。     

信托法发展中的一个重要阶段--英国1536年《用益法》颁布之前用益制的发展

现代信托法律制度起源于英国中世纪的用益制 ,英国 1 536年制定和颁布的《用益法》奠定了近现代信托法律制度发展的基础。在此之前用益制的发展分为两个阶段。用益制的发展并非一蹴而就 ,了解《用益法》颁布之前用益制的发展尤显重要。     

近现代英国信托法律制度的确立

信托法律制度是英美法系特有的一种制度 ,信托制起源于用益制。在用益向信托的转变中 ,有两个时刻非常关键 ,其一是 15 36年《用益法》的颁布 ,其二是 16 35年的萨班奇诉达斯顿案结论的确立。前者为信托的独立发展提供了契机 ,后者最终确立了信托制独立发展的结果。     

信托风险防范功能的法理基础探析

基于"双重所有权"理论的信托,由于信托财产的独立性、受托人权利的衡平机制以及信托登记公示制度,使其在财产管理以及风险隔离方面凸显优越性.     

信托法律制度的肇始--英国1536年《用益法》

一　引　言信托制度是现代社会衡量经济发展的重要杠杆 ,对信托法律制度的起源有着不同的看法 ,有人认为它起源于罗马法 ,其来源或者和罗马法上的遗产信托 (fideicommissum)有继承关系 ,或者和罗马法中的使用权 (usus)或用益权 (ususfructus)制度有关联 ,但这是一种表面化的分析。现在公认信托法律制度是英国本土的设计 ,它起源于英国中世纪的用益制。用益制是这样的一种设计 ,即某人将一定的财物 (一般是不动产 )交由另一人管理 ,受托人凭良心将所得收益和财物交由受益人。制度所成的背景主要是英国中世纪的人们为了规避沉重的封建赋税、防…     

论我国《信托法》的法律适用困难

我国<信托法>仍然沿袭了大陆法国家对信托制度的移植路径,即信托基于合同设定,因此受益人的财产权利不明确,受益人无法在权利受损时获得有效救济.2004年发生的金新信托"乳品信托计划"纠纷更是凸显出<信托法>的法律适用困难,"信托财产"和"财产权"的含糊表述无法明确界定信托相关人的责任以及信托财产的具体损失;法官裁量权的不足使得信托制度的衡平和灵活的特点难以得到实现.     

农村土地经营权信托流转的法律构造

农村土地以信托方式流转时,信托的委托人和受益人都是农户,因而农村土地流转信托属于自益型信托.依“三权分置”的农村土地制度改革设计,具有身份属性的农地承包权保留在农民手中,土地经营权作为用益物权进行流转,因而农村土地流转信托的客体是土地经营权而非土地承包经营权.信托设立后,土地经营权要移转给作为受托人的土地信托公司,由其以自己名义进行控制和处分.为保护农户的利益、并兼顾信托公司和农业生产经营者等第三人的利益,应通过信托登记公示信托财产.同时,信托公司有义务依信托之目的而管理信托事务.     

涉财产犯罪成本的相对法益评价

被告人为实施犯罪而投入的财产性犯罪成本,通常被认为不属于法益损失,故不应从犯罪数额中扣除.法益的主客观属性决定了结果无价值论和行为无价值论存在互相补充和修正的可能,被害人法益受损不应片面关注被告人危害行为的数额,也应兼顾被害人的转化收益并从损害结果中扣除,从而使犯罪成本的间接扣除具备了正当性逻辑.法益衡平须具备位阶要件、意图要件和效用要件.在一定条件下应赋予被害人法益选择权,使法益衡平具备了认定犯罪事实和恢复受损利益的双重功能;在恢复性司法品格下探索法益衡平的适用路径及其与刑事和解的程序衔接.     

论“自益离岸信托”委托人和第三人间利益的冲突和平衡

“自益离岸信托”的委托人不仅可以作为受益人获得受益权,还可以通过保留权力的方式获得信托的控制权.司法手段几乎是第三人触及信托财产的唯一选择.但是在岸地司法体系经常无法为第三人提供有效的救济.承认自益离岸信托是大势所趋,保护第三人利益却任重道远.全面深入研究包括让人“爱恨交加”的“自益离岸信托”在内的离岸金融课题,是中国发展离岸金融中心、顺应国际金融业发展的必然选择.     

香港信托制度的法效意义

一、香港信托制度的法律渊源香港法主要导源于英国法,部分民事法制则也受旧中国大清律例的影响,作为民间习惯使用,但信托制度几乎全部因袭英国法例。英国普通法不承认土地遗赠的法律效力,衡平法却承认了封建土地的第三者收益权,十六世纪就形成了信托制度的最早雏形.随着衡平法的发展,用益权(usufruct)逐渐演变为现代意义上的信托。普通法只承认公民对土地的所有权,而衡平法则允许设立信托,可以使原合法所有人之外,指定自己或者第三人有权享有地产的收益权。近代信托财产已发展到可以扩大到土地以外的其他产权。英国除判例法之外,还颁     

Trusts in prime jurisdictions * By Alon Kaplan and Barbara R Hauser, Eds

It is six years since the first edition of this book was reviewedin Trusts & Trustees (See Trusts & Trustees Volume 7,Issue 5, April 2001, pp. 30–33. The new edition reflectsmany of the changes in international trust jurisdictions. Geoffrey Shindler sets the scene in his preface. His commentthat we have barely seem to have drawn breath since that firstedition is reflected in the numerous new and revised chaptersof the book. In every jurisdiction where trusts are practised,he says, the overriding concern is the extent that our thoughtshave been dominated by regulation and anti-money launderingmeasures. The trust has been used as the scapegoat for the government'sinability to deal with crime—internal and external. Heuses succinct phrases in referring to the occasional assumptionby governments that: ‘trusts must, by definition, be involvedin money laundering in     

Wills,Trusts and Trusting from the Statute of Uses to Lord Nottingham

Medieval feoffments to the uses of a last will provided, in effect, a power to devise freehold land, otherwise generally impossible at common law. The Statute of Uses 1536 put an end to this mechanism, and in 1540 the Statute of Wills provided, within limits, a substitute power to devise. But conveyances inter vivos upon trust for the performance of wills continued to be made after 1540; and the distinction in practice between such trusts and wills was less clear than might be supposed: wills under the statutory power were understood as conveyances; executors were frequently trustees in a narrow sense; and the perception that executors were, in a broader sense, trusted, had substantive effects. In understanding wills, trusts and trusting after the Statute of Uses, distinctions between those who are ‘trustees’ and those who are not, or between conveyances upon trust and wills, may be an essential starting-point in bringing order to the sources, but cannot fully reflect the complexity of contemporary arrangements.     

The Law of Trusts and Equitable Obligations * 4th edn, By Robert Pearce and John Stevens

The most difficult textbook to write is one on trusts and equitableobligations. The principal market for such a book must be undergraduateswho are forced to combine the study of the law of trusts withperhaps three other legal topics in one year's study. Such isthe nature of the law of trusts and equity     

A Practitioner's Guide to Trusts, 5th Edn * John Thurston LLB, Solicitor, TEP, Ed.

Text books on the law of trusts can be of two sorts. First,there is the long and erudite explanation on the theory of trustsdealing with equity and its history     

Trusts for Religious Purposes and the Question of Public Benefit

It is a well‐established principle that no trust may be regarded as charitable in law unless carrying out its purposes will benefit the public. Trusts for religious purposes have traditionally been presumed by courts to be for the public benefit. However, the presumption of public benefit will be removed from the law in early 2008 when section 3(2) of the Charities Act 2006 comes into force. At that time, two questions are likely to attract interest. First, to what extent, and in what ways, has the application of a presumption of public benefit assisted courts up to now? Secondly, without the assistance of the presumption, how might courts go about ascertaining whether the public will benefit in future cases? The article takes up these two questions with respect to trusts for religious purposes.     

Public Trusts

Public, as distinct from charitable, trusts were authoritatively recognised in 1827, when the House of Lords determined that the permanent basis of equitable jurisdiction protected 'public money' from unlawful application, on the same basis as charitable funds were protected. These trusts made the relevant public functionaries subject to equitable remedies, but the remedies were displaced from equitable practice by jurisdictional fusion and by administrative audit surcharges. In the twentieth century they survived unrecognised in the ambiguously phrased 'local authority fiduciary duty to ratepayers'. Recently, public trusts have again been implicitly acknowledged, and the distinctive remedy of personal liability to make good loss arising from misapplication has been applied. However the right to litigate is confined to current fund-holders in fulfilment of their protective trust duty and to the Attorney General in the general public interest in countering unlawful appropriations of public money.     

Parker's Modern Wills Precedents, 5th edn * By Michael Waterworth MA (Cantab)

Trusts set up by will, will trusts, are governed by similarconsiderations to those affecting inter vivos trusts. Frequentlyin trust textbooks the authors do not tell us that will trustshave some significant difference from inter vivos trusts. Thelatter may be set up quite informally by a mere declarationof intention and the transfer of the trust property to the trustees.But will trusts can only come about if the law relating to makinga valid will has been complied with. This tends to get overlookedunder the shadow of possible inheritance tax     

论诉讼信托和讨债信托的效力——探讨《信托法》第11条第4项

我国《信托法》第11条第4项规定,专以诉讼或者讨债为目的设立的信托无效。然而,该条文是对日本《信托法》移植的结果,我国并没有禁止诉讼信托和讨债信托的理由。同时,该条文容易被规避且难以被认定,在司法实践中缺乏适用的空间。再者,该条文不仅与我国现行的诸多法律条文和制度产生冲突,而且与我国减少社会不良资产和增强我国公民法律意识、维权意识的目的相违背,故应当删除。事实上,诉讼信托和讨债信托不仅符合信托设立的要求,而且能使债权人、债务人受益,并起到减少讼累等有利效果,因此,应当承认诉讼信托和讨债信托在我国的合法地位。     

Law of Trusts and Trustees

In the past a new edition of this standard textbook was producedevery eight years. As David Hayton says, in his preface, thatnow with the need for more frequent editions in light of increasingrapid developments in the trust world this seventeenth editioncomes out three years after the previous one. David Hayton is joined in the editorial role by Paul Matthewsand Charles Mitchell. The former is responsible for preparingthe Administration of Trusts section and Charles Mitchell forpreparing the division of the book on Trusts Imposed by Lawand The Consequences of a Breach of Trust. Jonathan Harris coversthe     

论民事抗诉监督的信任保证

民事抗诉监督对司法公信力的修补,应当处理好四个方面的辨证统一关系:监督与信任的关系、既判力与再审的关系、实体判断与程序监督的关系、依存性信任与主体性信任的关系.现行宪政框架中我国检察机关的民事抗诉监督,试图通过三种渠道对司法公信力进行修补,即:再审抗诉的不得拒绝、审判监督前置对再审案件的过滤、提高一级的"上抗上审".<民事诉讼法>修正案对此进行了有益的改革,但个别规定还需进一步论证和完善.