信托法在全球法律体系中占据重要地位，为财富管理和资产保护提供了一种结构。然而，信托法的实施和解释在民法和普通法管辖区之间存在显著差异。这种差异在比较民法国家中国和普通法国家加拿大时体现得尤为深刻。
01
普通法管辖区下的信托法
- 加拿大视角：信托在像加拿大这样的普通法管辖区具有深厚的历史，可以追溯到中世纪。信托被视为一种关系，而不是一个独立的法律实体，涉及到设立人、受托人和受益人。
a) 法理学说：普通法体系下信托法的基本原则根植于受托人对于为受益人利益管理信托财产的信托责任，如Fales v. Canada Permanent Trust Co., [1977] 2 SCR 302[1]所确认的那样。
在普通法体系下，信托法的基本原则是建立在受托人对于为受益人利益管理信托财产的信托责任之上。这意味着受托人必须以受益人的最佳利益为导向，并将其利益置于首位。这种信托责任是普通法体系中的核心原则之一。
案例法在普通法体系中对于信托法的发展和解释起着重要的作用。其中，Fales v. Canada Permanent Trust Co., [1977] 2 SCR 302是一个具有重要意义的案例。在这个案件中，加拿大最高法院确认了受托人对于管理信托财产、行使信托权力以及履行信托责任的重要性。法院强调了受托人作为受托责任的持有人，有义务以诚信和忠诚的标准来行使其职责，并确保受益人的利益得到保护。
Fales案的判决确立了受托人在信托关系中的受益人利益至上的原则，这意味着受托人必须采取一切必要的措施来保护和增进受益人的利益。这包括正确管理信托财产、谨慎投资、及时向受益人提供信息以及按照信托文件的要求行事。
总之，普通法体系下的信托法基于受托人对于为受益人利益管理信托财产的信托责任。该原则在Fales案等判决中得到确认，并在信托法的实践中起着重要的指导作用。
b) 案例法：加拿大的信托法案例众多，其中Soulos v. Korkontzilas, [1997] 2 SCR 217[2]的判决是一起具有里程碑意义的案例，确认了建设性信托的使用以防止非正当获利。
在这个案件中，原告Soulos和被告Korkontzilas是商业合作伙伴，共同拥有一块土地。然而，由于各种原因，他们之间的关系变得紧张，最终导致合作关系的解散。在合作期间，Soulos为购买土地提供了资金，但土地的法律所有权却归属于Korkontzilas。Soulos主张他有权获得土地的受益，并要求法院通过建设性信托将土地的所有权转移给他。
最高法院在这个案件中确认了建设性信托的存在和适用性。建设性信托是一种法院根据公平原则创建的信托，旨在防止不公平的受益和非正当获利。法院认为，虽然Korkontzilas名义上是土地的法定所有人，但他应当以信托的方式持有该土地，以确保Soulos作为财产的真正受益人得到他应得的利益。
这个案件的判决对加拿大信托法产生了深远的影响。它确认了建设性信托的法律效力，并为法院在类似情况下采取行动提供了依据。建设性信托在信托法中起到重要的补充和保护作用，确保财产的所有人不得通过不正当手段获取不公平的利益，同时确保受益人获得应有的权益。
Soulos v. Korkontzilas案例的判决为信托法的发展和应用提供了重要的法律准则，进一步加强了信托关系中受益人权益的保护，维护了公正和公平的原则。
c) 法规：加拿大的信托法主要由省级信托法规管辖，比如安大略省的《受托人法》。这些法规概述了受托人的职责和权力、信托财产的投资规则以及信托终止的程序。
02
民法管辖区下的信托法
中国视角：在像中国这样的民法管辖区，信托是一个相对较新的现象，因为民法传统上并不承认信托所涉及的分割所有权。在中国，信托被视为设立人和受托人之间的合同关系。
a) 法理学说：与普通法不同，民法学说不将信托视为一个独立的法律实体。相反，受托人拥有财产的所有权，并对受益人承担合同义务。这在2001年的《中华人民共和国信托法》[3]中得到了确认。
b) 案例法：中国的法院具有有限的案例法优势，案例法在塑造信托法方面起到较小的作用。相反，法定法律和法规对信托结构产生重大影响。
c) 法规：《中华人民共和国信托法》是主要管辖信托的法规。该法规概述了信托的设立、变更和终止、受托人的职责和责任以及受益人的权利和义务。
加拿大和中国的信托法在起源和发展上存在主要差异。在加拿大，信托法经过几个世纪的发展，在司法决策中建立了先例，并与衡平法的原则相交融。然而，在中国，信托的概念是相对较新地通过立法引入的。
在加拿大，受托人并不拥有信托财产，而是代表受益人持有。相反，在中国，受托人保留信托财产的所有权，但根据合同义务必须为受益人的利益行事。
案例法在加拿大信托法的发展和解释中具有重大影响。相比之下，在中国，法定法律和法规主要驱动着信托法的发展，案例法的影响较小。
了解加拿大等普通法管辖区和中国等民法管辖区信托法之间的差异对于参与跨境法律事务、财富管理或遗产规划的个人和专业人士至关重要。尽管在两个管辖区内，信托的核心要素 - 为他人管理资产 - 是相同的，但信托的结构、解释和执行方式可能存在显著差异。
在加拿大这样的普通法管辖区，信托法根植于法律框架中，大量的案例法塑造了其应用和发展。加拿大信托的一个重要特点是明确将法定所有权（由受托人持有）与受益所有权（属于受益人）分开。因此，受托人处于信托责任的关系中，有义务为受益人的最佳利益行事。
在中国这样的民法管辖区，信托是一个相对较新的构造，且受到法定法律的严格约束。与加拿大法律不同，中国法律框架将信托视为合同协议，而不是一种形式的财产所有权。在中国，受托人保留信托财产的法定所有权，但必须履行向受益人的合同义务。虽然受托人必须以受益人的利益为导向，但这在解释上并不被视为像在加拿大法律中那样的受托责任。
案例法在加拿大法律体系中起着重要的作用，法院的决定形成对未来案件具有约束力的先例。这一做法促进了信托的演变和扩展，以满足不断变化的社会需求。例如，Soulos v. Korkontzilas案扩大了建设性信托作为防止非正当获利的救济方式的适用范围。
相比之下，中国信托法在解释上并不过分依赖案例法。相反，它遵循民法传统，依靠涵盖所有可提请法院的事项的综合法典。《中华人民共和国信托法》是主要管辖信托的法定法律，详细说明了信托中所有各方的权利、责任和责任。
03
澳门新信托立法——为大中国区高净值人提供更大机遇
2022年12月1日对澳门来说是一个重要的里程碑。作为一个民法管辖区，澳门在此之前并未完全承认信托的概念。
这项法律[4]的目的是促进澳门的金融服务行业，并将信托的概念引入民法体系。该立法借鉴了中国、日本和美国统一信托法典的信托法规，并旨在将信托这一在普通法司法管辖区常见的机制融入澳门的法律框架中。
根据该法律，信托被定义为一种法律安排，委托人将其财产权利转移给受托人，由受托人以自己的名义管理或处置，以造福受益人。这一定义与普通法司法管辖区中信托的基本概念一致。
信托可以为特定或非特定期限而设立，且信托本身没有法律人格。受托人成为资产的合法所有人，资产保持独立并进行单独核算。信托的资产不对受托人自身的债务负责，包括破产或清算情况，且在受托人去世时，信托的资产也不属于受托人的遗产。默认情况下，受益人有权获得信托资产的经济利益，尽管信托文件可以规定不同的安排。
只有特定的实体，如持有澳门许可的信贷和金融机构、保险公司和养老金基金管理公司，才被允许担任受托人。其他实体可能通过特别立法获得受托人资格。
澳门引入信托立法是该地区的重大发展。信托在普通法司法管辖区长期以来一直是常见的机制，现在也可以在澳门的民法体系中使用。这是一个积极的步骤，使澳门的法律框架与国际标准保持一致，增强了该地区在金融服务和投资方面的吸引力。
尽管存在这些差异，加拿大和中国的信托法都具有类似的目标 并 提供灵活和有效的法律工具，用于管理和保护财富。信托法适用于广泛的目的，从个人的遗产规划到商业交易。尽管机制和法律解释可能不同，但两个体系的目标都是平衡委托人、受托人和受益人的利益，确保信托的有效运作。
总而言之，在普通法和民法的信托法下，全面了解不同的方面对于从事法律实务、遗产规划或财富管理的人士至关重要，特别是在全球化的世界中。通过比较加拿大和中国的信托法框架，我们可以深入了解不同的法律传统如何塑造这一多功能的法律工具，以及其应用和执行的影响。
对加拿大和中国信托法进行比较分析，突显了普通法和民法管辖区采取的不同方法。加拿大作为普通法传统的代表，强调受托人的信托责任，并依靠案例法来塑造信托的发展和解释。相反，中国作为民法管辖区，将信托视为合同关系，并主要依靠法定法律作为指导。
了解这些差异对于参与跨境交易、国际遗产规划或涉及多个司法辖区的法律事务的个人和专业人士至关重要。这使他们能够应对各个司法辖区中信托法的复杂性和细微差别，并做出明智的决策。
通过研究加拿大和中国的原则、法理学说、案例法和法规，我们可以深入了解这些司法辖区信托法的基础。尽管两个司法辖区都致力于实现为他人管理和保护资产的相似目标，但其法律框架和运作机制存在显著差异。
总的来说，比较分析揭示了不同司法辖区对信托法的多样化观点和方法，有助于更全面地理解这一主题。它突出了法律传统、案例法和立法框架在塑造不同司法辖区信托法中的影响。
English Version （Key Elements ）
Comparative Analysis of Trusts under Civil Law and Common Law
Case Studies in China and Canada
Introduction: Trust law forms a vital part of the global legal landscape, providing a structure for wealth management and asset protection. However, its implementation and interpretation vary significantly depending on whether it falls under civil law or common law jurisdictions. This difference is profoundly reflected when comparing China, a civil law country, and Canada, a country governed by common law.
1.Trust Law in Common Law Jurisdictions - A Canada Perspective:
Trusts have a deep-rooted history in common law jurisdictions like Canada, tracing back to the Middle Ages. A trust is considered a relationship rather than a distinct legal entity, involving a settlor, trustee, and beneficiary.
a) Doctrine: The essential principles of trust law under the common law framework are anchored in the fiduciary duty of trustees to manage the trust property for the beneficiaries' benefit, as recognized in Fales v. Canada Permanent Trust Co., [1977] 2 SCR 302.
b) Case Law: Canadian trust law is replete with precedents, with the court decision in Soulos v. Korkontzilas, [1997] 2 SCR 217, being a landmark case that affirmed the use of constructive trusts to prevent unjust enrichment.
c) Regulations: The law of trusts in Canada is primarily governed by provincial trust acts, like the Trustee Act of Ontario. These acts outline the trustee's duties and powers, the rules for investment of trust property, and the processes for the trust's termination.
2.Trust Law in Civil Law Jurisdictions - A China Perspective:
Trusts in civil law jurisdictions like China are a more recent phenomenon, given that civil law traditionally did not recognize the split ownership that trusts entail. In China, a trust is treated as a contractual relationship between the settlor and trustee.
a) Doctrine: Unlike common law, the civil law doctrine does not recognize trusts as a separate legal entity. Instead, the trustee has the ownership of the property and contractual obligations towards the beneficiaries. This was established under the Trust Law of the People's Republic of China in 2001.
b) Case Law: Chinese courts have limited precedent power, and case law plays a minor role in shaping trust law. Instead, statutory laws and regulations heavily influence the trust structure.
c) Regulations: The Trust Law of the People's Republic of China is the primary regulation that governs trusts. The law outlines the creation, alteration, and termination of trusts, the duties and liabilities of the trustee, and the rights and obligations of the beneficiaries.
Comparing Trust Law in Canada and China:
The main difference between trust law in Canada and China lies in its origin and development. In Canada, trust law evolved over centuries, based on precedents set by judicial decisions, and is intertwined with the principles of equity. However, in China, the concept of trusts was introduced through legislation relatively recently.
In Canada, the trustee does not own the trust property but holds it for the benefit of the beneficiaries. In contrast, in China, the trustee retains ownership of the trust property, though they must act in the beneficiaries' interest according to the contractual obligations.
Case law significantly influences the development and interpretation of trust law in Canada. In contrast, statutory law and regulations primarily drive trust law in China, with case law playing a less influential role.
Understanding the differences between trust law in common law jurisdictions like Canada and civil law jurisdictions like China is crucial for individuals and professionals involved in cross-border legal affairs, wealth management, or estate planning. While the essence of trusts - managing assets for the benefit of others – is the same across both jurisdictions, the way trusts are structured, interpreted, and enforced can vary significantly.
In Canada, a common law jurisdiction, trusts are deeply embedded in the legal framework, with an abundance of case law shaping their application and evolution. A key characteristic of Canadian trusts is the clear separation of legal ownership (held by the trustee) from beneficial ownership (belonging to the beneficiaries). Thus, trustees are in a fiduciary relationship, obligated to act in the best interest of the beneficiaries.
In China, a civil law jurisdiction, trusts are a more recent construct and heavily dictated by statutory law. Unlike Canadian law, the Chinese legal framework views trusts as contractual agreements rather than a form of property ownership. Here, the trustee retains legal ownership of the trust property but must fulfill contractual obligations towards the beneficiaries. While they must act in the beneficiaries' interest, this is not interpreted as a fiduciary duty, as it would be in Canadian law.
Case law plays a significant role in the Canadian legal system, where the courts' decisions form binding precedents on future cases. This practice has allowed for the evolution and expansion of trusts to meet changing societal needs. For example, the case of Soulos v. Korkontzilas broadened the scope of constructive trusts as a remedy for unjust enrichment.
In contrast, Chinese trust law does not heavily rely on case law for its interpretation. Instead, it follows the civil law tradition of relying on comprehensive legal codes that address all matters capable of being brought before a court. The Trust Law of the People's Republic of China is the primary statutory law governing trusts, detailing the rights, responsibilities, and liabilities of all parties involved in a trust.
The comparative analysis of trust law in Canada and China highlights the distinct approaches taken in common law and civil law jurisdictions. Canada, with its common law tradition, places emphasis on the fiduciary duty of trustees and relies on case law to shape the development and interpretation of trusts. In contrast, China, as a civil law jurisdiction, views trusts as contractual relationships and primarily relies on statutory law for guidance.
Understanding these differences is essential for individuals and professionals involved in cross-border transactions, international estate planning, or legal matters spanning multiple jurisdictions. It enables them to navigate the complexities and nuances of trust law in each jurisdiction and make informed decisions.
By examining the principles, doctrines, case law, and regulations in Canada and China, we gain insight into the foundations of trust law in these jurisdictions. While both jurisdictions aim to achieve similar objectives in managing and protecting assets for the benefit of others, the legal frameworks and mechanisms employed differ significantly.
Overall, comparative analysis sheds light on the diverse perspectives and approaches to trust law, contributing to a broader understanding of the subject. It highlights the influence of legal traditions, case law, and legislative frameworks in shaping trust law in different jurisdictions.
3.Macau's New Trust Legislation - Providing Greater Opportunities for High-Net-Worth Individuals in Greater ChinaDecember 1, 2022, was an important milestone for Macau. As a civil law jurisdiction, Macau had not fully recognized the concept of trusts prior to this date.The purpose of this legislation is to promote Macau's financial services industry and introduce the concept of trusts into its civil law system. The legislation draws on trust laws from China, Japan, and the United States, aiming to incorporate this mechanism, commonly found in common law jurisdictions, into Macau's legal framework.According to this law, a trust is defined as a legal arrangement where the settlor transfers their property rights to the trustee, who manages or disposes of them in their own name for the benefit of the beneficiaries. This definition aligns with the fundamental concept of trusts in common law jurisdictions.Trusts can be established for a specific or indefinite period, and the trust itself does not have legal personality. The trustee becomes the legal owner of the assets, which are held separately and accounted for independently. The trust's assets are not liable for the trustee's own debts, including situations of bankruptcy or liquidation, and upon the trustee's death, the trust's assets do not form part of the trustee's estate. By default, the beneficiaries have the right to receive the economic benefits of the trust assets, although the trust instrument can provide for different arrangements.Only specific entities, such as licensed credit and financial institutions, insurance companies, and pension fund management companies in Macau, are allowed to act as trustees. Other entities may obtain trustee qualifications through special legislation.The introduction of trust legislation in Macau is a significant development for the region. Trusts have long been a common mechanism in common law jurisdictions and can now be utilized within Macau's civil law system. This is a positive step towards aligning Macau's legal framework with international standards and enhances the region's attractiveness in terms of financial services and investments.Despite these differences, trust laws in Canada and China share similar goals and provide flexible and effective legal tools for managing and protecting wealth. Trust law applies to a wide range of purposes, from individual estate planning to commercial transactions. While the mechanisms and legal interpretations may differ, the objectives of both systems are to balance the interests of the settlor, trustee, and beneficiaries and ensure the effective operation of the trust.In summary, having a comprehensive understanding of different aspects under common law and civil law trust laws is crucial for individuals and professionals engaged in legal practice, estate planning, or wealth management, especially in a globalized world. By comparing the trust law frameworks in Canada and China, we can gain deeper insights into how different legal traditions shape this versatile legal tool and the implications for its application and enforcement.Comparative analysis of trust laws in Canada and China highlights the different approaches taken by common law and civil law jurisdictions. Canada, representing the common law tradition, emphasizes the fiduciary responsibilities of trustees and relies on case law to shape the development and interpretation of trusts. In contrast, China, as a civil law jurisdiction, views trusts as contractual relationships and primarily relies on statutory law as guidance.Understanding these differences is essential for individuals and professionals involved in cross-border transactions, international estate planning, or legal affairs spanning multiple jurisdictions. It allows them to navigate the complexities and nuances of trust laws in various jurisdictions and make informed decisions.By studying the principles, legal theories, case law, and regulations in Canada and China, we can gain in-depth knowledge of the foundations of trust laws in these jurisdictions. While both jurisdictions share similar objectives of managing and protecting assets for the benefit of others, there are significant differences in their legal frameworks and operational mechanisms.Overall, comparative analysis reveals the diverse perspectives and approaches to trust laws in different jurisdictions, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the subject. It highlights the influence of legal traditions, case law, and legislative frameworks in shaping trust laws in different jurisdictions.Conclusion:
despite these differences, trust law in both Canada and China serves a similar purpose - to provide a flexible and effective legal instrument for managing and preserving wealth. It caters to a wide range of purposes, from personal estate planning to commercial transactions. While the mechanisms and legal interpretations may differ, both systems aim to balance the interests of the settlor, trustee, and beneficiary to ensure the trust's effective functioning.
In conclusion, a comprehensive understanding of the different aspects of trust law under both common law and civil law is crucial for those engaged in legal practice, estate planning, or wealth management, especially in a globalized world. By comparing the trust law frameworks of Canada and China, we gain insight into how different legal traditions shape this versatile legal instrument and the implications for its application and enforcement.
[1] SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Fales v. Canada Permanent Trust Co., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 302
[2] Soulos v. Korkontzilas, 1997 CanLII 346 (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 217
[3] 中华人民共和国信托法 ２００１年４月２８日第九届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第二十一次会议通过
[4] 2022 年 11 月 3 日，澳門立法會通過了第 15/2022 號法律 《信託法》/ https://bo.io.gov.mo/bo/i/2022/46/lei15_cn.asp
