美国《统一欺诈转让法》中的债权人保护研究

发布时间：2018-05-11 23:30

本文选题：美国《统一欺诈转让法》 + 实际欺诈　；参考：《安徽大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：2014年《公司法》对于设立阶段资本规制的放松引起了学者的热议,因为普遍情况下设立阶段资本规制的放松通常是以经营阶段资本规制的强化为前提才能进行的,但是我国经营阶段资本的强化措施本身力度不够足、保护范围不够广,这使得设立阶段资本规制的放松可能会在我国诚信体制缺乏的情况下,可能会产生大量的侵害债权人利益的行为。美国在这方面有着较为完备的成文法与相对充实的判例法,值得我们研究借鉴。美国1918年的《统一欺诈交易法》作为世界上第一部反欺诈性交易专门立法,它源于《伊丽莎白第13号法令》中关于欺诈的规定。《伊丽莎白第13号法令》规定了欺诈的概念,初步列举了一些欺诈嫌疑,但是该法令缺乏确定性,欺诈嫌疑的适用也因为管辖权不同难以统一适用,因此《统一欺诈交易法》产生了,其目的在于寻求与具体事实结合的、会不容置疑地导致欺诈发生的证据,通过简洁明确的法律准则的规定,结束各州在适用上的混乱,最终减少甚至消除对于欺诈嫌疑适用上的差异。《统一欺诈交易法》最大的进步将欺诈分为实际欺诈与推定欺诈,不同的欺诈类型有不同的认定标准,推动了债权人保护的构建。但是随着社会的进步和交易的丰富与复杂化,《统一欺诈交易法》也暴露出了弊端,对一些概念的阐述不够清晰,适用中出现了各种各样的问题。因为债权人在公司法律关系中处于一个天然弱势的地位,所以需要进一步清晰的的法律界定与保护。1984年美国统一州法律委员会出台了《统一欺诈性转让法》,其中对债权人的保护是完善且恰当的,对此前《统一欺诈交易法》中阐述的不清楚的概念一一作出了明晰:提出了"公平合理"来衡量价格的标准,以及关于当前债权人以及未来债权人的欺诈转让、内部人优先转让等新情况。"公平合理"的衡量标准对比之前的"公平"标准而已,更具有发展性与可实施性,是法与情之间的博弈;《统一欺诈性转让法》对欺诈转让进行了类型化的区分,囊括了会出现的各种各样的欺诈转让情形,包括内部人优先转让的欺诈情形,并提出了不同的针对性解决措施,对债权人的保护具有相当实际的意义。美国《统一欺诈性转让法》是一个完善的、经过实践历练与时间检验的法律,对于我国现阶段经营阶段资本弱化行为具有借鉴意义。美国《统一欺诈性转让法》针对性强、其制度理论架构相对完备,具有移植的可能性;而我国《合同法》对债权人撤销权制度规定存在适用范围有限、救济措施不充分、债权人行使撤销权举证责任分配不当等问题,因此,移植美国《统一欺诈性转让法》又具有紧迫性与必要性。在确立规制细化、移植灵活性的移植指导思想的基础上,以必要的判例指导和法官专业素质的提升为前提,对于美国《统一欺诈性转让法》的可取之处进行移植,从将"欺诈转让"加以明确界定、对债权人救济权的综合规定、诉讼时效类别化三方面构建我国专业的反欺诈转让法,遏制欺诈行为对市场诚信的破坏,在对债权人实施保护的同时创建更良好的交易市场。
[Abstract]:In 2014, the loosening of the regulation of the establishment of capital by the company law has aroused the hot discussion of the scholars, because the relaxation of the capital regulation in the establishment stage is usually carried out on the basis of the strengthening of the capital regulation in the operation stage, but the strengthening measures of the capital in the operation stage of our country are not enough and the scope of protection is not wide enough. The relaxation of the capital regulation in the establishment stage may lead to a large number of actions against the interests of creditors in the absence of our country's good faith system. In this respect, the United States has a relatively complete written law and a relatively substantial case law. It is worth our study and reference. In 1918, the United States of United States fraud Transaction Act > as the world. The first anti fraudulent trade special legislation originates from the provisions on fraud in < Elizabeth thirteenth >. < Elizabeth thirteenth decree > defines the concept of fraud and lists some suspects, but the decree lacks certainty, and the application of suspected fraud is also difficult to apply to unified jurisdiction because of different jurisdictions, so < unification. The act of fraudulent transactions has come into being, and its purpose is to seek a combination of specific facts, which will unquestionably lead to the evidence of fraud, to end the confusion in the applicable states through the provisions of concise and clear legal norms, and to reduce or even eliminate the differences in the application of suspicion. < United fraud transaction law > the greatest progress will be made. Fraud is divided into real fraud and presumptive fraud. Different types of fraud have different criteria for identification, which have promoted the construction of the protection of creditors. However, with the progress of the society and the complexity and richness of the transaction, the unifying fraud transaction law has also exposed the disadvantages, and the exposition of some concepts is not clear enough. Because the creditor is in a natural disadvantaged position in the legal relationship of the company, it needs further clearer legal definition and protection for.1984. The United States Law Committee of the United States issued the unified fraudulent transfer law, which is perfect and appropriate for the protection of creditors. Clear concepts are made clear: "fair and reasonable" to measure the standard of price, as well as on the fraud transfer of current creditors and future creditors, the transfer of insider priority, and other new situations. "Fair and reasonable" standards are more developed and enforceable than the "fair" standards before. It is the law and the feeling. "The game of inter"; the "unified fraudulent transfer law" distinguishes the transfer of fraud, including a variety of fraudulent transfers that will appear, including the fraudulent cases of internal priority transfer, and puts forward different targeted solutions to the protection of creditors. "Let law" is a perfect, through practice and time test law, for the current stage of our country's operational stage of capital weakening of the act of reference. The United States "unified fraud transfer law > is strong, its institutional framework is relatively complete, with the possibility of transplantation; and China's" contract Law > to the right of revocation of creditors. With limited scope of application, inadequate relief measures and improper allocation of burden of proof by creditors, it is urgent and necessary to transplant the United States "uniform fraud transfer law". On the basis of establishing the guiding ideology of regulation refinement and transplantation flexibility, the necessary case guidance and professional quality of judges are given. On the premise of promotion, the redeeming of the United States' unifying fraudulent transfer law is to be transplanted, from the definition of "fraud transfer", the comprehensive provision of the creditor's right of relief, the three aspects of the classification of the limitation of action, the construction of the professional anti fraud transfer law in China, the destruction of the fraud of the market integrity, and the protection of the creditors. And create a better trading market at the same time.

【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D971.2;DD912.29

【相似文献】