保底信托效力认定的类型化

A Taxonomy-based Analysis of the Validity of Promised Return Trusts

根据受托人是不是承担保底之债的主体,可将保底信托分为直接保底信托与间接保底信托。保底信托违反信托财产独立性以及放任受托人违反信义义务的批评未能区分强制性规范与任意性规范,且将效力规制与履行规制混为一谈,均不足以否定其效力。我国保底信托效力认定规则的变化与英国信托法中信托与金钱之债互斥以及受益人间不负作为之债的法理存在差异,其真正变因是信托司法对监管立场的部分接纳。法院应对“九民纪要”第90条、第92条进行目的解释而非文义解释,并基于系统性风险认定保底信托的效力。对保底信托效力进行类型化展开时,除基于系统性风险之认定标准外,还可以将无效法律行为转换制度、法律行为部分无效制度作为补充依据。

Depending on whether the trustee is the one who promises return to the beneficiary,promised return trusts can be divided into direct promised return trusts and indirect ones.Current criticisms on promised return trusts fail to distinguish mandatory rules from default rules and confuse validity control with performance control and,as a result,are unable to negate the validity of promised return trust.Recent changes in Chinese law regarding the validity of promised return trusts have departed from two doctrines in English trust law,namely,the doctrine of mutual exclusivity of trust and debt and the doctrine that beneficiaries are not personally liable to each other.The true cause of the changes is the partial embracement of the regulatory position by the trust law judicature.In interpreting Article 90 and Article 92 of the Minutes of the National Courts’Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference,courts should adopt the purposive approach,rather than the textual approach,and,in particular,should use the systemic risk as the criterion for determining the validity of various types of promised return trusts.When carrying out a taxonomy-based interpretation of validity,apart from applying the test of determining the system risk,the converting of void juridical acts and the partial voidness of juridical acts can be referred to as supplementary grounds.