|
两岸金融监管合作了解备忘录已完成签署
|
两岸银行、保险、证券期货等三项金融监理合作了解备忘录（以下简称〝MOU〞）的签署事宜，已于2009年11月16日由台湾行政院金融监督管理委员会代表分别与中国银监会、保监会、证监会代表完成签署。MOU将于双方各自完成相关准备后生效，但最迟不超过签署之日起60日内。
MOU顺利完成签署，两岸金融监管机构将据此建立监管合作机制，两岸金融合作进入实质阶段。MOU生效后，台湾7家已符合规模的大陆银行办事处可升格为分行；大陆金融机构也可赴台投资。此外，大陆商业银行、证券、基金公司及保险等金融机构都将可通过合格境内机构投资者（QDII）投资台湾的股票及债券市场。
MOU的内容依循国际惯例来处理，主要包括（1）资讯交换：范围限于对金融机构进行合并监理所需信息、金融监理法规制度相关信息，但不包括客户账户数据；（2）资讯保密：对于所取得的信息，仅能供监理目的使用，并应予保密；（3）金融检查：双方可以对己方金融机构在对方境内的分支机构进行检查；（4）持续联系：双方可举行会谈，并鼓励进行人员交流互访；及（5）危机处置：对于一方金融机构在对方境内的分支机构发生经营困难时，双方应协调共同解决所面临的问题与障碍。
|
|
|
Memorandum of Understanding for cross-strait cooperation on financial supervision executed
|
The Memorandum of Understanding (the“MOU”) for cross-strait cooperation on financial supervision of banking, insurance and securities & futures was signed on November 16, 2009, by and between the representatives of the Financial Supervisory Committee of Taiwan’s Executive Yuan and the representatives of China’s Banking Regulatory Commission, Insurance Regulatory Commission and Securities Regulatory Commission respectively. The MOU shall become effective after both parties complete the relevant preparations at each side, but in no event later than 60 days after the signing of MOU.
As the MOU has been executed successfully, financial supervisory authorities in Taiwan and China will establish mechanisms for cooperation on regulatory activities based on the MOU, and, as a result, cross-strait financial cooperation will enter the substantive phase. After the MOU becomes effective, seven representative offices of Taiwanese banks in China with conforming sizes can be upgraded to branches; financial institutions in China can also invest in Taiwan. In addition, financial institutions in China, including commercial banks and securities, fund and insurance companies, will be able to invest in Taiwan's stock and bond markets through qualified domestic institutional investors (“QDII”).
The contents of the MOU follow international conventions and mainly include: (1) information exchange: the scope is limited to information needed for joint supervision of financial institutions and relevant information of law, regulations and systems relating to financial supervision, excluding the account information of customers; (2) confidentiality: the information acquired may only be used for the purpose of supervision, and shall be kept in confidence; (3) financial inspection: either party can inspect branches of the financial institution of its own side that are located in the other party’s territory; (4) continuing contact: both parties may hold conferences and encourage exchanges and visits among the staff; and (5) crisis management: if branches of the financial institution of either party’s side that are located in the other party’s territory encounter difficulties in their business operation, both parties should coordinate with each other to solve impending issues and overcome obstacles.
|
|
|
中国证券监督管理委员会发布《证券投资基金评价业务管理暂行办法》 |
2009年11月6日，中国证券监督管理委员会发布《证券投资基金评价业务管理暂行办法》（以下简称〝《办法》〞），自2010年1月1日起施行。《办法》规范了基金评价机构对证券投资基金进行评价并通过公开形式发布基金评价结果。基金评价结果以公开形式发布的，《办法》规定不准用短期时间标准来判断基金的优劣（例如：不得对基金、基金管理人单一指标排名的更新间隔少于1个月）。
|
|
|
China Securities Regulatory Commission issued Interim Measures for Regulation of Assessment of Securities Investment Fund |
The China Securities Regulatory Commission, on November 6, 2009, issued the Interim Measures for Regulation of Assessment of Securities Investment Fund (the “Measures”), which will take effect as of January 1, 2010. The Measures regulate the evaluation of securities investment funds by fund rating agencies and the public announcement of the evaluation result. Where the evaluation result of the funds is announced publicly, the Measures stipulate that the strengths and weaknesses of the funds shall not be evaluated based on short-term criteria (e.g., the interval of updating the ranking of funds and fund managers in a single category shall not be less than 1 month).
|
|
|
国家税务总局发布《关于如何理解和认定税收协定中〝受益所有人〞的通知》
|
2009年10月27日，国家税务总局发布《关于如何理解和认定税收协定中〝受益所有人〞的通知》（〝《通知》〞），对中华人民共和国政府对外签署的避免双重征税协定中，缔约对方居民申请享受股息、利息和特许权使用费等条款规定的税收协定待遇时，对申请人的〝受益所有人〞身份认定的问题作出解释。
《通知》规定〝受益所有人〞是指对所得或所得据以产生的权利或财产具有所有权和支配权的人。〝受益所有人〞一般从事实质性的经营活动，可以是个人、公司或其他任何团体。代理人、导管公司等不属于〝受益所有人〞。导管公司是指通常以逃避或减少税收、转移或累积利润等为目的而设立的公司。这类公司仅在所在国登记注册，以满足法律所要求的组织形式，而不从事制造、经销、管理等实质性经营活动。在判定〝受益所有人〞身份时，不能仅从技术层面或国内法的角度理解，还应该从税收协定的目的（即避免双重征税和防止偷漏税）出发，按照〝实质重于形式〞的原则，结合具体案例的实际情况进行分析和判定。
|
|
|
State Administration of Taxation issued Circular on Definition and Recognition of “Beneficial Owner” in Tax Treaties
|
On October 27, 2009, the State Administration of Taxation issued the Circular on Definition and Recognition of “Beneficial Owner” in Tax Treaties (the “Circular”). Where the Chinese Government enters into a treaty with a foreign jurisdiction for avoidance of double taxation, and the residents in the relevant foreign jurisdiction apply for preferential tax treatment under such treaty with respect to dividend, interest and royalty incomes, the Circular provides the explanation of the recognition of “beneficial owner” as claimed by such applicants.
The Circular stipulates that the “beneficial owner” refers to those who hold the ownership of, or the right to dominate, the incomes or any rights or properties from which such incomes are generated. Generally, the “beneficial owner” is engaged in the substantive business operations, who may be an individual, a company or any other organization. Agents and conduit companies are not “beneficial owners”. A conduit company refers to the company which is generally established for the purposes of avoiding or reducing tax and transferring or accumulating profits. Such a company is only registered in the country of its incorporation so as to meet the formality requirements under the law, and does not engage in any substantive business operations including manufacturing, sales and management. When determining whether the applicant qualifies as a “beneficial owner”, it is necessary to take into account not only the technical and Chinese law issues, but also the purpose of the tax treaty (i.e., avoidance of double taxation and prevention of tax invasion), and analyze and determine the case based on the “substance over formality” principle in connection with the actual backgrounds of each individual case.
|
|
|
国家质量监督检验检疫总局发布《关于修改<食品标识管理规定>决定》
|
2009年10月22日，国家质量监督检验检疫总局发布《关于修改<食品标识管理规定>决定》（〝《决定》〞），自公布之日起施行。《决定》对2008年9月1日开始施行的原规定作出修改。修改后的《食品标识管理规定》细化了对食品标识的要求，明确了食品标识上标注生产者信息、贮存条件、净含量及标注规格、成分或者配料清单、产品标准代号等内容的要求及方式，以期对保证食品商品的质量、保障消费者权益起到推动作用。
|
|
|
General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine issued Decision on Amending Regulations Governing Labeling of Food Products |
On October 22, 2009, the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine issued the Decision on Amending Regulations Governing Labeling of Food Products (the “Decision”), effective as of the same day. The Decision has amended the Regulations Governing Labeling of Food Products (the “Regulations”) which took effect as of September 1, 2008. The amended Regulations stipulate the requirements for the labeling of food products in further detail, and specify the requirements and method for the labeling of manufacturer’s information, storage conditions, net contents, specifications, list of ingredients or components and standard code of products, with a view to enhancing the quality assurance of food products and consumer protection.
|
|
|
国家工商行政管理总局发布《商标代理管理办法》
|
2009年11月11日，国家工商行政管理总局发布《商标代理管理办法》（〝《办法》〞），并自发布之日起施行。
《办法》对商标代理组织接受委托，以委托人的名义办理商标注册申请及其他有关商标事宜做了相关规定。《办法》规定，商标代理组织的业务范围包括：（一）代理商标注册申请、变更、续展、转让、异议、撤销、评审、侵权投诉等有关事项；（二）提供商标法律咨询，担任商标法律顾问；及（三）代理其他有关商标事务。
《办法》另规定了商标代理人的条件：（一）具有完全的民事行为能力；（二）熟悉商标法和相关法律、法规，具备商标代理专业知识；及（三）在商标代理组织中执业。
《办法》对商标代理中的利益冲突做了特别规定，例如商标代理组织不得接受同一商标案件中双方当事人的委托，以及商标代理人不得同时在两个以上的商标代理组织执业等。
|
|
|
State Administration for Industry and Commerce issued Measures for Regulation of Trademark Agencies
|
On November 11, 2009, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce issued the Measures for Regulation of Trademark Agencies (the “Measures”), effective as of the same day.
The Measures set forth relevant regulations governing application for trademark registration and handling of other trademark-related matters by trademark agencies engaged to act in the capacity as the representatives. According to the Measures, the business scope of trademark agencies includes: (1) application for registration, modification, renewal, assignment, objection, cancellation, review and tortious claim relating to trademark; (2) provision of legal consultation and acting as legal counsel on trademark law; (3) other trademark-related matters.
In addition, the Measures stipulate the qualifications of trademark agents: (1) full capacity for civil acts; (2) familiarity with the Trademark Law and other relevant laws and regulations, and expertise to act as trademark agents; and (3) practicing with an active status in a trademark agency.
The Measures also set forth specific provisions on conflict of interests in the handling of trademark matters. For example, trademark agencies are prohibited from accepting the engagement by both parities in a trademark case, and trademark agents may not work at two or more trademark agencies at the same time.
|
|
|
商务部附条件批准松下公司收购三洋公司经营者集中反垄断申报
|
2009年10月30日，商务部附条件批准了松下株式会社（下称〝松下公司〞）收购三洋电机株式会社（下称〝三洋公司〞）的经营者集中反垄断申报。
商务部认为，合并后松下公司将在硬币型锂二次电池、民用镍氢电池的世界市场分别占据61.6%和46.3%的市场份额。此外，松下公司与丰田公司合资设立的企业——松下EV能源株式会社（下称〝PEVE公司〞）在车用镍氢电池世界市场占据77%的市场份额，且三洋公司是PEVE公司在该市场的唯一竞争者。鉴于以上因素，商务部认为合并将对上述三个产品市场产生限制竞争或排除竞争的影响。
商务部接受集中双方提出的解决条件，附条件批准了该项经营者集中申请。所附条件主要为：（1）关于硬币型锂二次电池：要求剥离三洋公司目前全部的硬币型锂二次电池业务，将其转让给独立第三方；（2）关于民用镍氢电池：要求剥离三洋公司或松下公司其中一方的民用镍氢电池业务，将其转让给独立第三方；（3）关于车用镍氢电池：要求剥离松下公司的车用镍氢电池业务，将其转让给独立第三方；（4）对于PEVE公司，松下公司将其出资比例从目前的40%降到19.5%；放弃在PEVE股东大会的表决权及对PEVE的董事委派权；放弃与PEVE的母公司丰田汽车的合资合同中关于车用镍氢电池业务的否决权；PEVE公司名称变更为不含〝Panasonic〞字样的公司名称。
|
|
|
Ministry of Commerce Issued Conditional Approval of Combined Businesses Concentration Application by Panasonic Corporation for Acquisition of SANYO Electric Group |
On October 30, 2009, the Ministry of Commerce (“MOC”) issued the conditional approval of the combined businesses concentration application filed by Panasonic Corporation (“Panasonic”) for its acquisition of SANYO Electric Group (“SANYO”).
MOC was of the opinion that Panasonic will have a global market share of 61.6% and 46.3% respectively in the button cell Li-ion battery market and consumer Ni-MH battery market after the merger. In addition, Panasonic PE Energy Corporation (“PEVE”) – a joint venture between Panasonic and Toyota Corporation – holds a 77% global market share in the Ni-MH automobile battery market, and SANYO is the only competitor of PEVE in this market. In light of the above factors, MOC considered that such combined businesses concentration would have a restricting and adverse effect on competition.
MOC accepted the terms of reconciliation offered by Panasonic and SANYO, and conditionally approved their combined businesses concentration application. The main conditions are as follows: (1) in regards to the button cell Li-ion battery, SANYO is required to spin-off its current business in button cell Li-ion battery and transfer it to an independent third party; (2) in regards to the consumer Ni-MH battery, either Panasonic or SANYO is required to spin-off its business in consumer Ni-MH battery and transfer it to an independent third party; (3) in regards to the Ni-MH automobile battery, Panasonic is required to spin-off its business in Ni-MH automobile battery and transfer it to an independent third party; and (4) in regards to PEVE, Panasonic shall (i) reduce its shareholding in PEVE from 40% to 19.5%; (ii) relinquish its voting right in PEVE’s shareholders’ meetings and the right to appoint directors of PEVE; (iii) relinquish the veto right with respect to the business in Ni-MH automobile battery set forth in the joint venture agreement with Toyota Corporation; and (iv) have the name of PEVE change to one without the reference to “Panasonic”.
|
|
|
最高人民法院发布《关于审理洗钱等刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》
|
最高人民法院于2009年11月10日发布了《关于审理洗钱等刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》（下称〝《解释》〞），该《解释》自2009年11月11日起生效。
《解释》明确了洗钱类犯罪中〝明知〞的司法认定标准，并列举了可被推定〝明知〞的具体情形，包括：（1）知道他人从事犯罪活动，协助转换或者转移财物的；（2）没有正当理由，通过非法途径协助转换或者转移财物的；（3）没有正当理由，以明显低于市场的价格收购财物的；（4）没有正当理由，协助转换或者转移财物，收取明显高于市场的〝手续费〞的；（5）没有正当理由，协助他人将巨额现金散存于多个银行账户或者在不同银行账户之间频繁划转的；（6）协助近亲属或者其他关系密切的人转换或者转移与其职业或者财产状况明显不符的财物的；（7）其他可以认定行为人明知的情形。上述情形，除有证据证明确实不知道情形外，可以认定被告人明知系犯罪所得及其收益。
《解释》还列举了将被认定为 〝以其他方法掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得及其收益的来源和性质〞的七种洗钱情形，包括：（1）通过典当、租赁、买卖、投资等方式，协助转移、转换犯罪所得及其收益的；（2）通过与商场、饭店、娱乐场所等现金密集型场所的经营收入相混合的方式，协助转移、转换犯罪所得及其收益的；（3）通过虚构交易、虚设债权债务、虚假担保、虚报收入等方式，协助将犯罪所得及其收益转换为〝合法〞财物的；（4）通过买卖彩票、奖券等方式，协助转换犯罪所得及其收益的；（5）通过赌博方式，协助将犯罪所得及其收益转换为赌博收益的；（6）协助将犯罪所得及其收益携带、运输或者邮寄出入境的；（7）通过前述规定以外的方式协助转移、转换犯罪所得及其收益的。
|
|
|
Supreme People’s Court issued Interpretation on Issues Relating to Application of Laws in Criminal Trial Involving Money-Laundering |
On November 10, 2009, the Supreme People’s Court issued the Interpretation on Issues Relating to Application of Laws in Criminal Trial Involving Money-Laundering (the “Interpretation”), which took effect as of November 11, 2009.
The Interpretation clarifies the judicial criteria for determining “having knowledge” in money-laundering offences, and lists the circumstances under which “having knowledge” can be deemed: (1) having knowledge of criminal offences committed by others, and aiding and abetting in the exchange or transfer (collectively, the “Transfer”) of properties; (2) aiding and abetting in the Transfer of properties through illegal means without any justifiable reason; (3) procuring properties at the price clearly lower than the market price without any justifiable reason; (4) aiding and abetting in the Transfer of properties with a charge of “commission” which is clearly higher than the market standard without any justifiable reason; (5) aiding and abetting others in breaking up a large sum of cash by depositing smaller sums into various bank accounts or transferring cash among different bank accounts frequently; (6) aiding and abetting close relatives or other persons in close relationship in the Transfer of properties which are clearly inconsistent with their profession or personal asset; (7) other circumstances under which the person concerned may be deem to have knowledge. The defendants may be deemed to have knowledge of the gains and proceeds arising from criminal offenses (collectively, “Illegal Gains”) under the above circumstances, unless there is evidence to prove that they do not have actual knowledge thereof.
The Interpretation also lists seven circumstances under which the defendants may be deemed to “cover up or conceal the source and nature of Illegal Gains through other means”, which include: (1) aiding and abetting in the Transfer of Illegal Gains through pledge, rent, sale/purchase and investment; (2) aiding and abetting in the Transfer of Illegal Gains by way of commingling with the income of cash-intensive businesses including shops, hotels and entertainment venues; (3) aiding and abetting in converting Illegal Gains into “lawful” assets through fictitious transactions, debts and credits, guarantee and incomes; (4) aiding and abetting in converting Illegal Gains by way of purchasing sweepstake and lottery tickets; (5) aiding and abetting in converting Illegal Gains into gambling proceeds through gambling; (6) aiding and abetting in carrying, transporting or mailing Illegal Gains overseas; and (7) aiding and abetting in the Transfer of Illegal Gains through means other than those set out above.
|
