摘 要

　　债券登记托管法律制度是债券市场运行的基本法律制度，对其法理基础的清晰认识，是建立健全债券登记托管法律制度和业务框架的前提条件。债券登记方面，鉴于债券权利是一种复合型权利，本文认为其包含了持有债券的权利和债券所代表的权利义务关系。结合我国现行法律制度和国际经验，本文建议：一是将证券法中证券概念范畴扩展至所有债券类型；二是在证券法等立法中明确债券登记确权的基本规则；三是在相关立法中明确债券登记机构具有唯一性。债券托管方面，本文认为在我国现行债券托管关系中，中央托管机构与发行人、投资者分别构成委托法律关系，而非信托关系。

　　关键词

　　债券登记 债券托管 法律制度

　　债券登记托管法律制度是证券登记托管制度的组成部分，是债券市场运行的基本法律制度，是包括债券登记、托管在内的一系列法律制度的统称。由于债券概念并未完全囊括于《中华人民共和国证券法》（以下简称《证券法》）中，债券登记的法律属性、中央托管机构（CSD）进行托管的法律性质等问题存在争议。本文主要从登记、托管法律制度的民法和证券法法理基础开展研究。

　　债券登记的法理基础

　　（一）债与债券

　　1．民法上的债与债券

　　在传统民事法律概念中，债是债权债务法律关系的代表，“是特定人之间请求为一定行为或不为一定行为的关系”。《中华人民共和国民法典》（以下简称《民法典》）第四百四十条将债券定性为“权利”。债券作为有价证券的典型代表之一，是权利的集合。债券的权利人享有该只债券包含的一切权利，包括要求债务人按时还本付息、出质、买卖的权利等。

　　2．证券法上的债券

　　我国现行的《证券法》并没有将所有的债券品种纳入其中。《证券法》第二条规定公司债券、上市交易的政府债券以及资产支持证券适用《证券法》，而银行间债券市场的金融债券、非金融企业债务融资工具等品种的发行、交易、登记、托管、结算等，由中国人民银行及其指定机构依照《中华人民共和国中国人民银行法》等制定的现行有关规定管理。

　　3．债券权利的法律定位

　　关于债券权利在民事权利体系中的法律定位有两种观点：一是坚持传统民法中的物权、债权二元分类的财产权体系，从而将债券权利纳入物权法或债法的调整范围。1二是将债券权利纳入广义证券权利概念，即不囿于物权、债权二元分类的财产权体系，将整个权利视为无形财产，不纳入物权法调整，而在单行法下建立独立的证券权利制度体系。我国已经制定了公司法、票据法、知识产权相关法律、证券法等单行法律，这些法律对股权、票据权利、知识产权和有价证券等无形财产进行了充分调整，并不勉强纳入物权法和债权法原理进行论证。2李东方（2018）认为，证券权利从根本上说，是伴随着股份公司股权或者股票的兴起和证券交易所的发展而逐渐形成的一种新类型权利，是证券所表彰的一系列权利的总称，包括股票上的股权、债券上的债权等。

　　债券权利是一种复合型权利，是特殊的财产权利，表征多种权益的复杂法律关系。债券上有两种权利：一是持有债券的权益，即债券持有人持有债券并享有债券上相应的权利。在实物券时代，债券体现为实体财产，债券的持有人即推定为权利人，享有债券上的各项权益，如要求发行人进行付息兑付的权利、进行出质的权利。当前债券形态从有纸化转变为无纸化，但债券的权利本质没有变化。二是债券所代表的权利义务关系，即从债券持有人与发行人之间的关系出发进行考察，债券代表的是一种债权债务关系，债券持有人与发行人因为债券建立了债权债务联系，双方需各自履行债权债务关系下的权利义务。

　　（二）债券登记的法理基础

　　债券登记与不动产物权登记有近似的法理基础，尤其是在无纸化的今天，债券登记除了表彰所有者权利，即确认所有者权利，更具有排除他人侵害其财产权益的功能，即权利保护功能，类似《证券法》中的股权登记制度。债券登记具体规则可参照股权登记规则制定，债券登记规则与其他民事财产登记规则如不动产登记规则一样，都属于特别民事规则，作为民法特别法存在。

　　1．债券登记是对债券权利的确认

　　债券登记确认的是谁是债券权利人、谁可以行使债券上权利的问题，调整的依然是人与“物”的关系。我国《民法典》也认可权利可以作为物权客体。对于债券登记是权利确认这一点，现行法律法规也有明确表述，例如《中华人民共和国国债托管管理暂行办法》第十九条规定“托管账户所载明的余额是客户拥有国债数额的唯一法定依据”。因此，在证券无纸化背景之下，无纸化证券和记名证券财产权利的公示需要登记制度来实现。

　　2．债券质押登记具有明确的法律规定

　　《民法典》第四百四十一条对无纸化债券出质作出明确规定：以债券出质的，质权自权利凭证交付质权人时设立；没有权利凭证的，质权自办理出质登记时设立。传统物权法上，不动产只能设置抵押，以抵押登记为确权依据；一般动产及权利只能设置质押，动产质权以交付为确权依据，权利质权以凭证交付或登记（没有权利凭证的）为确权依据。该条款至少明确释放了如下两个信息：

　　其一，《民法典》物权编将无纸化债券纳入了调整范围。因其易于转移占有的特征与动产相类似，故与动产一同纳入质权法律框架调整，并独立为“权利质权”。同时，在法律未对其作出特别规定时，得以准适用动产质权的相关规定，在担保物权的设立中依然归为质权的范畴。

　　其二，《民法典》物权编明确了无纸化债券出质的确权方式是登记。尽管债券设置的担保物权是质权，但无纸化债券的质押确权方式却不是传统动产质权的交付，而是自出质登记时设立，显示了《民法典》在无纸化债券登记上的鲜明立场。设置担保本就是债券权利集合中的一项重要的权利类别，债券作为担保品的作用也日益凸显，在《民法典》已经对无纸化债券质权作出明确规定的基础上，对于债券登记的整体法律解释也应顺应其基本规定。

　　3．债券登记应遵循公示、公信原则

　　债券登记制度遵循物权登记制度的基本法理。登记制度是民法物权的公示方法，公示、公信原则是民法物权的基本原则。公示原则是立法者为了使物权法律关系更加清晰、保证法律交易的安全而在物权法律中确立的一项基本原则。物权公示原则意味着无论动产还是不动产上的物权都应当可以从外部加以认识，在因民事法律行为导致物权设立、变更、转让或消灭时，须通过法定的方式向外界加以展示，使他人知悉，否则无法产生一定的法律效果。公信原则是指对于信赖物权存在外观表象的人，即使在该外观表象与实际物权情况并不相符的情形下，也保护该信赖之原则。公示原则在于使人“知”，公信原则在于使人“信”。

　　4．债券登记的集中统一登记原则

　　我国《证券法》对证券登记结算机构的定位、职能做出原则性规定，确定了证券集中登记原则。《证券法》第一百四十五条规定，证券登记结算机构为证券交易提供集中登记、存管与结算服务；第一百四十八条规定，场内交易的证券应采取全国集中统一的运营方式；第一百五十一条规定，证券登记结算机构应当根据证券登记结算的结果确认证券持有人持有证券的事实。学者普遍认为，根据《证券法》的规定，证券登记结算机构的登记是对证券权利归属的确认。但是，由于我国债券的概念并未完全包括在《证券法》中，债券登记的中央确权并未囊括其中。债券登记的中央确权通过《中华人民共和国国债托管管理暂行办法》《地方政府债券发行管理办法》《银行间债券市场债券登记托管结算管理办法》等部门规章或规范性文件明确。《中华人民共和国证券投资基金法》也认定基金份额由登记机构确认时，申购才能生效。

　　此外，从公法关系而言，证券登记结算机构的集中登记、设立及业务规则制定需要法律法规或行政机关的授权，应以《证券法》为最高授权规范。《证券法》明确规定，证券登记结算机构为证券交易提供集中登记服务，并履行证券账户设立、证券持有人名册登记等职能。同时，《证券法》明确，证券登记结算机构的设立及其章程和业务规则制定皆须由国务院证券监督管理机构批准。证券登记行为本身兼具公法属性与私法属性。在登记机构及登记行为的法定性、统一性上，公法属性明显，需要法律法规或行政机构授权才能开展相关业务。需要注意的是，债券领域的相关下位法规范应与《证券法》所确立的中央集中登记的立场保持一致，即应体现债券登记结算机构之债券登记行为的法定性与统一性，而不宜将该项法定职能转授权给其他机构行使。前述财政部、中国人民银行的相关部门规章和规范性文件也已明确债券登记的中央确权，是与《证券法》保持一致的制度规范。

　　5．债券登记的域外法规范

　　从域外的立法实践来看，证券登记的法律效力通过立法专门规定，并不完全依赖于传统民法体系中的物权制度和合同制度。

　　（1）美国。美国的《统一商法典》第八章创设了“证券权益”（security entitlement，有时也被翻译为“证券权”）概念，以此表彰多层托管、间接持有体制下投资者的权益。证券权益实质上是一种财产权益，描述的是证券权益持有人与其直接托管证券的证券中介之间的一揽子权利与职责关系。该法第八章同时规定了无纸化证券之证券权益的转让方式。依据第8-501条规定，当证券中介将金融资产通过账面记录记入投资者的证券账户时，该投资者即获得证券权益。

　　（2）英国。英国于2001年正式实施《2001年无纸化证券法令》（the Uncertificated Securities Regulations 2001），该法令是关于无纸化证券的专门立法。法令第二条首先明确了证券的范围，各类股票、债券、集体投资计划单位、存托凭证以及证券权益等都包含其中。法令第二十四条是关于登记效力（effect of entries on registers）的规定，该条第六款明确规定“运营者登记”（operator register）上权利人持有无纸化证券的记录应当被视为该证券的权利归属证明。

　　（3）日本。日本通过《公司债、股份等账户划拨法》规定了公司债、国债以及地方政府债的确权方式。该法第七十六条、一百零一条、一百一十三条分别规定客户合法持有其账户记载或记录的记账式公司债、国债、地方政府债的权利。第七十三条、九十八条、一百一十三条则规定前述债券除非经账户明确记录，否则转让不生效，即确定了债券的登记确权效力。日本《股票保管及过户法》（1984年）第二十四条规定参与人和客户账户根据其账户记载的股份数量推定对托管的股份享有共有权。

　　（4）德国。德国的《电子证券法》（Gesetz zur Einführung von elektronischen Wertpapieren， eWpG）于2021年6月正式生效，为通过电子证券登记册进行权利交易建立了法律基础，并增加了加密证券登记簿的相关内容。该法第一条规定电子证券的范围仅限于不记名债券。第二条规定“电子证券”应以被授权的中央登记机构保管的电子证券登记册中的条目代替证券证书，电子证券登记册上的“记录”实际上便等同于传统动产的“交付”。第二十五条规定，电子证券在转移给买方前，受益人不会失去其所有权。第二十七条则规定经登记的电子证券持有人被推定为该证券的所有人。

　　综上，域外立法皆在民法体系的物权制度及合同制度之外进行特别立法，以此确定证券尤其是无纸化证券的法律规则，并明确中央证券托管机构的登记确权效力。同时，域外国家或地区关于证券的特别立法中，基本都将债券纳入证券的范围之中。

　　（三）国内债券登记托管结算机构登记业务实践——以中央结算公司为例

　　债券登记主要包括两个内涵。一是客体登记，是债券作为一种产品的登记、债券要素的登记。债券客体登记可以确保债券为真，避免超冒发行等风险事件发生。二是主体登记，既包括发行人的债务登记，也包括投资者的债权登记，确认发行人和持有人之间的债权债务关系。这种登记在国债、地方债中具有特殊意义。通过对投资者的债权登记，监管机构可以实时掌握投资者情况、实现穿透式监管，避免地缘政治发生极端情况时国家缺乏反制手段，充分防范金融风险。为发行人进行债务登记是政府债务管理的客观需要，也是维护债券市场乃至整个金融市场稳定的重要手段。“登记”存在于发行、交易等多个环节。具体来说，发行环节“登记”是指中央国债登记结算有限责任公司（以下简称“中央结算公司”）与发行人所签订《债券发行、登记及代理兑付服务协议》中约定的“债券登记服务”之一，属于主体登记和债券要素登记。交易环节“登记”是中央结算公司对债券账户中相关信息的记载，包括业务中的变更登记、受限登记等，债券持有人账户代替了传统纸质债券的占有，作为债券持有人交易债券的权利基础，债券账户中的变更登记、受限登记即是在无纸化债券交易过程中对债券持有人持有债券变动的生效要件。

　　在实践中，交易双方在外汇交易平台达成债券交易指令，则交易合同生效，指令传输到后台进行券款对付（DVP）结算时已经进入到交易合同的履行阶段。如款足、券足，则钱货两讫。在交易完成后，中央结算公司作为登记机构，根据交易结果维护客户账务，在相应的债券账户中计加或计减，完成债券权利的确认。对此，现行法律法规也有明确的表述，例如《2021年记账式国债招标发行规则》第七条规定：债权托管机构在财政部收到发行款后，为认购人办理债权登记和托管。因此，债券登记的是权利，不是合同，具有公示权利归属与实现权利变动的法律意义3，债权债务关系的确立基于私人合意，双方达成一致后即可生效履行，与登记无关，也不需要登记。4中央结算公司开展的债券登记是中立第三方做出的对于已经发生和存在的债券进行权利确权的行为，登记的债券权属内容包括债券的要素、持有主体等。

　　（四）债券登记制度的立法建议

　　1．《民法典》是债券登记法律效力的理论基础

　　债券的发展经历了从有纸化到无纸化的转型。有纸化时代债券作为实体财产，其权利变动与归属遵循《民法典》物权编的相关规定；在进入无纸化时代后，尽管债券的外观形态发生变化，但其财产权利的属性以及表征的法律关系和权利内核并没有改变，仍应以物权中有关权利公示的基本理论进行解释。《民法典》物权编也明确规定了权利可以作为物权客体、无纸化债券出质的登记效力的问题，债券登记作为证券权利登记的一种，应与《证券法》中的股票登记具有同样的法律地位。只不过债券权利同股票权利一样，是证券化的特殊权利，不需要直接在《民法典》中规定，需要由特殊法规范。

　　2．对《证券法》及相关法律规则进行修订完善

　　一是将《证券法》中证券概念范畴扩张至债券，并在《证券法》中明确证券登记和证券变更登记的法律效力。首先，将证券概念扩展至债券是统一股票、债券等证券登记规则的前提。对此，美国1933年《证券法》可供参考，该法第二条对“证券”进行了详尽定义及列举，将股票、债券等皆涵盖其中。其次，我国《证券法》第一百五十一条规定，应当根据证券登记结算的结果，确认证券持有人持有证券的事实。有学者认为该条系登记确权之依据。但该表述产生登记生效还是登记对抗的法律效力并不明晰。为避免理解歧义，建议借鉴日本政府债券交易中登记生效的规定，进一步明确证券登记生效之立场。建议增加规定：“一旦证券关系记载完毕且完成登记，则产生法律效力。证券以证券登记结算机构的登记和变更登记作为生效和变动的公示方式。”

　　二是可通过推动无纸化证券的专门立法确立证券登记确权的基本规则。随着时代进步，无纸化财产逐渐成为社会财产的重要组成部分，对一些典型、价值巨大、监管清晰的无纸化财产权利，我国逐步确立了部门法进行单独调整，例如《证券法》《著作权法》《专利法》等。这些部门法对于财产权利的确认均坚持了物权法关于登记的一般理论，坚持登记生效，坚持登记机构的统一性。银行间债券市场体量巨大，债券在法律属性、实际性状、交易逻辑等各个方面都是无纸化财产权利的典型代表，尤其与股票同属法律规定的有价证券，在确权方式、确权机构统一性上应当进行相同解释，没有理由突破证券法律登记理论的基本要求在债券市场上进行分散确权。

　　3．债券登记机构应当具备统一性、唯一性

　　一方面，基于物权公示、公信原则对于登记机构统一性的要求，证券登记机构应当具备统一性。在法律规范中，物权法律制度和理论致力于确定财产的权属，强调公示、公信原则。在以登记为确权方式的财产中，登记簿是确认权利的唯一依据，登记簿的公信力是登记制度的核心。要保证交易安全的重任委于公信力，统一登记机关以维护公信力至关重要。登记本身承担的价值功能包括安全价值、效率价值以及产权保护价值，均要求统一的登记机关，以保证这些价值的实现。保持登记原则、依据、程序、效力、登记机关、簿册的统一，是物权法上登记的基本规则之一5。有价证券目前没有实现统一登记，例如，记账式国债必须到中央结算公司办理出质登记，而在证券交易所上市交易的公司债券则须到中国证券登记结算有限责任公司（以下简称“中国结算”）办理出质登记。

　　另一方面，从市场交易安全角度出发，债券交易的公众性要求债券登记具有唯一性和权威性。信息披露是证券市场的核心法律制度，其设立的初衷是解决信息不对称问题。各国证券法对公开发行的证券普遍有较高的信息披露要求，其法理精神在于对涉众性强的产品交易施加更多的信息披露义务，以降低信息不对称程度，同时促使证券产品的交易具有可以令公众信服的权利外观。传统商事法律属于私法，但凡有涉及公众利益的商事产品、交易行为，需要证券法或其他特殊法来规范。债券，特别是上市交易的政府债券，也具备公众性，《证券法》第二条也对此作出了规范。但是“上市”的公众性标准是以“公开发行”的公众性来确定的，而对于公众性标准是否局限于我国《证券法》关于公开发行的标准，在学界仍有很大争议。不可否认的是，债券交易，特别是在普通投资者可参与市场中的债券交易，其公众性是显而易见的。这种公众性就要求其彰显权利的渠道、信息披露的路径具有权威性和唯一性。所谓债券登记的唯一性，是指债券市场上仅存在唯一的登记机关，适用唯一的登记规则，且具有唯一的法律后果。我国债券市场早期曾存在由分散的金融机构办理债券登记并保管的历史阶段，却出现了一系列虚假发行、超冒信用、私卖挪用等欺诈行为，酿成严重的金融风险，危害了债券市场乃至整个金融体系的健康有序运行。实践表明，债券登记的唯一性更能够保障债券市场交易的安全，也有助于债券登记权威性的树立，引导债券发行人、持有人形成更强的规则意识、责任意识。

　　债券托管的法理基础研究

　　（一）债券托管业务的实践

　　在实践中，债券托管业务涉及债券中央托管机构为债券投资者提供的托管服务，以及托管银行为其客户提供的债券托管服务。由不同主体为债券投资者提供的债券托管服务具有形式上的差异性和内容上的相似性。

　　从形式上来看，由投资者以自己的名义将债券托管于中央托管机构，中央托管机构直接为债券投资者提供债券托管服务，形成一级托管的结构；由托管银行等中介机构为客户提供的债券托管业务，需中介机构再以自己的名义托管至上一级中介机构直至中央托管机构，在结构上形成多级托管。在国际实践中，各国基于本国的法律体系构建债券投资者权益保护的制度安排，呈现出多样性，例如德国的共有权制度、美国的证券权利制度等。从国际实践来看，既存在一级托管，亦存在多级托管。

　　从内容上看，无论由债券中央托管机构直接为债券投资者提供托管服务，还是由托管银行为其客户提供托管业务，就债券托管业务的本质内容来看具有相似性，即债券（中央）托管机构为债券持有人提供查询、质押、付息兑付、公司行为等服务，对债券持有人的债券权益进行维护和管理的行为。在多级托管模式下，由托管银行为其客户提供次级托管服务，托管银行仍需将其代为托管的客户债券以及自营债券托管至债券中央托管机构，由债券中央托管机构完成对托管银行及其客户的债券托管行为。

　　我国金融市场在注重效率、深化对外开放的同时，要守住不发生系统性金融风险的底线。从金融市场安全性的角度来看，由债券中央托管机构为债券投资者直接提供一级债券托管服务是最符合安全性要求的。债券中央托管机构作为金融市场基础设施之一，为债券发行人、投资者提供登记、托管、结算等金融市场基础设施服务，为债券发行、交易及交易后环节提供制度保障。在满足债券投资者安全性要求的同时，能够配合金融监管实现国家金融市场的安全性要求。

　　（二）债券托管业务的法律属性

　　从国际经验来看，支付结算体系委员会（CPSS）和国际证监会组织（IOSCO）2012年发布的《金融市场基础设施原则》（PFMI）针对中央证券托管提出了具体的原则性指引，要求“CSD应该具有适当的规则和程序，以确保证券发行的完整性，最小化并管理与证券保管、转让相关的风险”，明确“CSD应该与法律框架保持一致，通过适当的规则和程序，保护资产免受托管风险”，以及“在法律框架支持的情况下，CSD还应在账簿运行方面支持参与者与其客户的证券进行分离”。可见，国际上并未对CSD托管行为的基础法律关系作出明确要求，允许各国在其法律制度基础之上制定相应的业务规则，仅对规则的效果或目标作出明确要求，即降低证券保管、转让的风险，保护参与者的权益。

　　在债券市场中，不同参与主体与金融市场基础设施之间形成的法律关系亦存在差异。具体来看，债券中央托管机构为债券投资者提供的债券托管服务具体包括开户、查询、挂失、冻结、质押、过户、代理派息、公司行为、信息咨询等。从中央结算公司现有的业务模式来看，其与投资者之间在债券托管业务中构成委托法律关系。

　　投资者在认购债券后成为债券持有人，委托中央托管机构为其提供债券托管、结算等服务，投资者与中央托管机构之间形成委托合同法律关系。中央托管机构依据投资者委托为其提供债券账户的托管服务，而中央托管机构实现托管的行为依据来源于债券持有人发出的指令，依据该指令对其债券账户记载的信息进行相应的变更；中央证券托管机构的客户服务协议中亦明确，没有债券持有人指令，“公司无权对账户中的债券进行支配或处分”。由此可见，中央托管机构现有的托管业务是对债券持有人指令的执行，中央托管机构应当依据债券持有人的指令，及时、准确、完整地予以执行，对未能履行上述合同义务的行为应承担违约责任。双方主体之间的权利义务具有相对性，构成委托合同法律关系。

　　从法律关系上看，债券中央托管机构与债券持有人之间基于平等的法律地位，签订有关债券托管的服务合同，各自按照合同约定行使权利、履行义务。但应注意到，债券中央托管机构维护债券登记托管系统具有明确的行政授权，如财政部发布的《国债托管管理暂行办法》中明确规定，授权中央国债登记结算有限责任公司依本办法按照不以营利为目的的原则主持建立和运营全国国债托管系统。同时，债券中央托管机构在授权范围内享有一定的职权，承担一定的职责，如中国人民银行发布的《银行间债券市场债券登记托管结算管理办法》明确债券登记托管结算机构在债券登记、托管和结算业务中履行多项职能，如监督柜台交易承办银行的二级托管业务，对债券登记、托管和结算活动进行日常监测，发现重大违法违规行为应当及时向中国人民银行报告并进行相应处理等。

　　（三）我国现行法律体系难以适用以信托为基础的名义持有制度

　　债券多级托管是从形式上对债券托管业务链条中的中央托管机构、次托管主体以及债券投资者之间结构的描述，债券多级托管涉及多个相对方之间的法律关系，可能涉及委托法律关系，也可能涉及信托法律关系。但是在我国现有法律制度框架下，难以直接适用以信托为基础的名义持有制度。

　　1．委托和信托法律关系

　　《民法典》第九百一十九条规定了“委托合同”的定义，即依据当事人约定，由受托人处理委托人的事务。《中华人民共和国信托法》（以下简称《信托法》）规定，信托是指委托人基于对受托人的信任，将其财产权委托给受托人，由受托人按委托人的意愿以自己的名义，为受益人的利益或者特定目的进行管理或者处分的行为。委托与信托的关系表现在以下几个方面：

　　一是从法律概念的内涵及外延看，“委托”的范围大于“信托”。在信托法律关系中，基于对受托人的信任，委托人将自己的财产委托给受托人管理。特别是在一些信托法律关系中，双方当事人签订的合同中并未明确表述为“信托”合同，而通常以“委托”代替，但司法机关在对双方法律关系进行认定时，依据行为实质，若符合信托法律关系，也会将其认定为信托法律关系。据此，仅从“委托”与“信托”法律概念的内涵及外延层面看，“委托”的范围大于“信托”，信托法律关系的建立一定是基于委托人的委托，但委托人委托受托人处理相关事务并不一定构成信托法律关系。

　　二是从受托人需要承担的法律责任来看，在信托法律关系中受托人需要承担更为严格和多元的法律责任，而在委托法律关系中受托人承担的法律责任更为单一。在委托法律关系中，受托人仅在委托人的明确授权范围内开展活动，受托人行为所产生的法律责任由委托人承担，受托人仅承担双方之间约定的合同义务。在涉及第三人的委托代理法律关系中，即便是在受托人没有代理权或超越代理权的情形下，相对人在有理由相信受托人具有代理权时，其代理行为的法律责任也应当由委托人向相对人承担。在信托法律关系中，受托人一方面接受委托人的委托，为受益人的最大利益处理信托事务，需要向受益人兼委托人承担义务，这一义务除合同约定外，还包括基于信托法律关系以忠实义务为核心的信义义务，主要有：善良管理人注意（谨慎）义务、忠实义务、分别管理义务、亲自执行义务、公平义务、记录保管和报告义务等。另一方面，受托人在以自己的名义管理信托财产时，与第三人构成新的法律关系，需要向第三人承担合同责任或（及）侵权责任，形成信托关系之外的法律责任。因此，以信托为基础构建的债券托管法律关系，受托人需要承担基于信托法律关系的信托义务，以及开展信托财产管理活动时形成的合同义务，法律责任更加严格且多元。

　　2．我国债券托管领域适用信托理论的法理挑战

　　在英美等信托制度较为成熟的国家，债券托管采用了信托关系作为其基础法律关系，同时成熟的信托制度也为多级托管下债券持有人权益保护提供了基础。但在我国民法理论及现行《信托法》背景下，构建债券托管信托法律关系具有现实挑战。

　　（1）英美法采用信托关系具有法理基础和路径依赖

　　从信托概念的定义来看，英美的信托概念具有明显的灵活性，注重法律效果，对信托种类和功能限制较少。一是明确信托是一种信任关系，二是明确受托人为了他人利益而享有该特定财产的法律上的所有权，受益人则享有该特定财产的衡平法上的所有权。在英美信托法律制度中，信托财产权的构成体现了“二元所有权”的观念，即在英美信托制度下，债券持有人和托管人均可对托管债券享有所有权，使持有人对托管债券的间接持有成为可能。

　　（2）大陆法系适用信托法理的天然困境

　　大陆法系传统民法的“物债二分”理论对英美法系信托法律关系中的财产权解释无力。大陆法系没有普通法与衡平法之分，并且继受罗马法“一元所有权”观念，所有权本身不可分割。所有权制度本质上的差异，使得如中国与英国的信托法在规则制定和信托关系中各方权利义务之间的安排存在差异。大陆法系在引入信托制度时，在技术上作了两项处理，一是大致按照物权和债权的区分模式来构造信托财产权，即赋予受托人对信托财产以所有权，同时赋予受益人对信托财产以受益权——享有信托利益的权利，并使之具有债权化倾向。比如，受益人受益权的行使，原则上只能针对受托人。

　　（3）我国债券托管难以直接适用《信托法》

　　与英美法系信托定义的灵活性相比，大陆法系具有严谨的成文法特征，其对法律概念的定义采取“要件导向”的思维模式。依据我国《信托法》中规定的信托定义，只有在满足法律规定的各项构成要件后，双方之间才能被认定为属于信托法律关系。这限制了信托的种类和功能。具体而言，第一，依据《信托法》第八和第九条，设立信托是一种要式法律行为，需要签订书面的信托合同。在一般的债券托管合同中，没有体现出设立信托的意思表示。第二，信托财产需要有财产权利转移，在债券托管中没有这种权利转移行为，投资者仍然享有债券权益。债券投资者作为委托人，将持有债券托管至托管机构，对托管债券仍享有所有权，同时，托管业务的受益人也为债券投资者。第三，依据《信托法》第二条，从信托合同目的角度，信托是由受托人为受益人利益或者特定目的进行管理或处分的行为。信托委托的是财产权，是对财产的使用权、受益权、管理和处分的权利。而债券的收益与托管机构的管理行为无关，债券付息由发行人向投资者承诺并履行。

　　（四）债券托管法律关系的模式选择与立法建议

　　1．在立法中明确债券登记托管结算机构的法律地位

　　一是在《证券法》或有关金融基础设施的特别法中明确债券登记托管结算机构的法律地位。我国《证券法》第一百四十八条明确了交易所证券交易的登记结算的集中统一制度，但债券种类繁多，且以银行间债券市场交易为主，未来需要将债券市场统一的登记托管结算体系在《证券法》或金融基础设施的专项立法中进一步明确。

　　二是明确中央托管机构与债券持有人等市场主体在债券托管业务中的基础法律关系为委托关系，并统一规范表述。目前，交易所市场将证券登记结算机构接受证券公司委托、集中保管证券公司自有及其客户证券、代收红利等权益维护服务的行为，称为“存管”，但就行为本质来看，该行为与银行间债券市场所称“托管”业务均为委托代理关系。我国《证券法》第一百四十七条在描述证券登记结算机构职能时，列举了机构对证券存管和过户的职能。《证券法》中虽未明确证券登记结算机构与其他市场主体之间构成委托法律关系，但在实践中，法院认为中国结算是为证券交易提供集中登记、存管与结算服务的法人，接受券商发出的指令并完成交易结算，登记结算机构与券商之间构成委托关系。在相关司法判决中，法院认定中国结算作为委托关系中的受托人，接受委托人发出的指令，不对托管人擅自处分投资资产的行为承担责任6。

　　2．委托法律关系能够满足债券持有人的安全要求

　　债券中央托管机构与债券持有人的一级托管模式账户体系最为扁平化，法律关系最为简单，能够有效实现委托法律关系下持有人债券的安全性要求。依据现行债券中央托管机构的债券登记、托管业务规则，中央托管机构接受发行人委托，代为维护债券持有人名册，同时债券持有人直接在中央托管机构开立债券托管账户，委托中央托管机构代为维护相关权益。中央托管机构在其维护的持有人账户体系中，基于债券持有人的分别委托，对各债券持有人独立设账、独立记载，实现了债券持有人之间的账户隔离，保障债券持有人账务的真实、完整和安全。

　　3．在立法和相关监管政策要求下可以引入信托关系

　　未来在登记结算业务多元化发展的情况下，在立法确认和相关监管政策明确要求下，可以结合业务开展的实际需求适时引入信托关系。

　　一方面，将信托法作为民法特别法单行立法，需要以特别规定对前述物权—债权模式进行符合信托本质的改造，以阻却民法上有关物权、债权规则的全盘适用。比如，对受托人所有权施以受益权和信托法上的义务的双重制约，一是明确规定受托人行使所有权的目的是为了受益人的利益，需受到受益权的制约；二是明确规定受托人行使所有权要符合信托协议规定以及《信托法》规定的受托人义务的制约。对受益权则通过信托财产独立性等设计使之具有一定的物权效力（如受托人破产时的别除权、信托终止后的信托财产归属权等）。

　　另一方面，也需要通过协议明确各方法律关系，受托人也需承担更为严格的信托义务。委托法律关系能够满足债券持有人对保管、转让债券以及维护债券相关权益的安全与效率的需求。但就未来债券市场的发展特别是债券在担保品领域广泛应用的前景来看，债券中央托管机构作为金融市场基础设施，基于其集中化、专业性等优势，能够在债券市场创新发展方面发挥重要作用。债券中央托管机构凭借其授权托管的法律地位获得更为广泛的权利范围，是其发挥自主性、积极性的重要基础。对比债券中央托管机构在信托法律关系与委托法律关系中的地位与权利范围可见，债券中央托管机构作为信托法律关系中的受托人，在管理信托财产（托管债券）的过程中享有更大的裁量权，具有更强的自主性，但同时也需承担更为严格的信托义务。（本文为中央结算公司中债研发中心“债券市场登记托管结算问题研究”课题的部分研究成果）

　　注：

　　1．依据《民法典》对民事权利的基本分类，我国采用的是物债二分的法律体系，债权与物权是相对的概念。

　　2．马俊驹，梅夏英． 无形财产的理论和立法问题[J]． 中国法学，2001（2）．

　　3．叶林，张昊． 无纸化证券的内涵与法律地位——兼谈证券的基本属性[J]．河南大学学报（社会科学版），2009，49（2）．

　　4．在法学的基本理论中，合同关系发生和物权生效是两种完全分离的行为。例如，买卖房屋涉及签订房屋买卖合同和进行房屋登记两个行为，前一个行为受合同法调整，解决双方之间基于合同履行产生的各种问题，双方达成合意合同即生效。后一个行为受物权法调整，解决谁是房屋权利人问题，只有登记，权利才能生效。在合同双方以外的任何人看来，只有登记簿上的权利人才是房屋的所有权人。

　　5．赵珉婧． 物权体系化视角下的不动产登记机关之统一[D]． 中国政法大学，2011．

　　6．参见（2009）沪一中民三（商）初字第27号民事判决书．

　　参考文献

　　[1] 李东方． 证券登记结算的法理基础研究[J]． 中国政法大学学报，2018（5）．

　　[2]王静． 无纸化证券与证券法的变革[M]． 北京：中国法制出版社，2009．

　　[3] 王利明，杨立新，王轶，程啸． 民法学（第六版）[M]． 北京：法律出版社，2020．

　　[4] 王泽鉴． 民法学说与判例研究（重拍合订本）[M]． 北京：北京大学出版社，2015．

　　◇本文原载《债券》2022年2月刊

　　◇作者：中央结算公司中债研发中心 祁畅 张文 杜泽夏

　　◇责任编辑：鹿宁宁 刘颖

　　The Jurisprudential Basis for Bond Registration and Depository

　　QI Chang， ZHANG Wen， DU Zexia

　　Abstract

　　The laws and regulations concerning bond registration and depository constitute the legal foundation on which the bond market operates． For bond registration and depository， a clear understanding of its jurisprudential basis proves to be a prerequisite for establishing a complete set of laws & regulations and a sound business framework． With respect to bond registration， this paper holds that bond rights， as a type of composite rights， encompass the rights to hold bonds and the right-obligation relationship represented by bonds． In conjunction with the laws & regulations prevailing in China and the international experience in this regard， this paper therefore puts forth three recommendations． First， the definition of securities in securities law will be expanded to cover all types of bonds． Second， basic rules for bond registration and rights confirmationwill be made clear in securitieslawand other laws． Third， it will be explicitly stipulated in related laws that there isonly one bond registration institution． As to bond depository， this paper argues that in China， the central securities depository（CSD） hasa principal-agent relationship， not a fiduciary relationship， with issuers and investors．

　　Keywords

　　Bond registration， Bond depository， Legal system

　　The legal system concerning bond registration and depository， as an integral part of the securities registration and depository regime， constitutes the legal foundation on which the bond market operates． It is a collection of laws and regulations for bond registration and depository． Given the fact that bonds are incompletely defined in the Securities Law of the People’s Republic of China（hereinafter referred to as “the Securities Law”）， there is controversy over the legal attribute of bond registration， the legal nature of bond depository by a CSD， and many other issues． This paper mainly discusses the jurisprudential basis on which bond registration and depository laws/regulations are built in dimensions of civil law and securities law．

　　The Jurisprudential Basis for Bond Registration

　　i.Debts and bonds

　　1.Debts and bonds in civil law

　　In the traditional civil law， debt represents the legal relationship of claims and debts--a relationship between specific persons requesting for certain acts or not for certain acts． TheCivil Code of the People’s Republic of China（hereinafter referred to as “the Civil Code”） defines bonds are “rights” in Article 440． As a typical example of marketable securities， bonds are known as a collection of rights． The right holder of a bond has all the rights contained in that bond， including the right to demand the debtor to pay the principal and interest on time， the right to pledge the bond， and the right to trade the bond， etc．

　　2.Bonds in securities law

　　The Securities Law currently effective in China fails to cover all types of bonds available in the market． As stipulated in Article 2， the present Securities Law shall be applied to the corporate bonds， publicly traded government bonds， and assets-backed securities （ABSs）． However， the issuance， trading， registration， depository， settlement， and other operations of financial bonds， debt financing instruments bynon-financial enterprises and other varieties in the interbank bond market shall be managed by the People’s Bank of China （PBOC） and the institutions designated by it in accordance with the regulations formulated as per the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the People’s Bank of China．

　　3.The legal position of bond rights

　　The views on the legal position of bond rights in the system of civil rights are divided into two major categories． （1） The property rights system that advocates the binary classification of real rights and claims in the traditional civil laws is maintained， so as to include bond rights in the regulation scope of real rights law or law of obligations．1（2） Bond rights are incorporated into the broad-sense concept of securities rights， that is， a property rights system which is not confined to the binary classification of real rights and claims． Rights are considered as intangible property． Instead of being included within the regulation scope of real rights law， an independent system of securities rights will be established under separate laws． To date， China has formulated a large array of separate laws， including the Company Law， the Law of Negotiable Instruments， the intellectual property rights （IPRs）-related law， and the Securities Law， which make adequate regulations for intangible property such as equity， rights to negotiable instruments， IPRs， and marketable securities without prematurely introducing the principles of real rights law and law of obligations law for demonstration．2According to Li Dongfang （2018）， securities rights are fundamentally a new type of rights that hascome into being with the rise of company equity or shares and the development of stock exchanges；as a series of rights recognized by securities， they may include equity in shares orclaims in bonds．

　　Bond rights are a kind of composite rights and a special type of property rights， representing the complex legal relations of various interests． There are two kinds of rights on bonds． One is the right to hold bonds， i.e．， the right that bondholders possess bonds and have the rights on the bonds． In the era of physical bonds， bonds existed as physical property． So bondholders were presumed to be the right holders， enjoying various rights and interests on the bonds， such as the right to demand interest payment from issuers and the right to pledge bonds． Today， bonds have changed from paper-based to paperless， but the essence of bond rights remains unchanged． The other is the right-obligation relationship represented by bonds． In other words， examined from the relationship between the bondholder and the issuer， a bond represents a debtor-creditor relationship， in which the bondholder and the issuer establish a debtor-creditor connection because of the bond， and have to fulfill their respective rights and obligations under such a relationship．

　　ii.Jurisprudential basis for bond registration

　　Bond registration has a similar jurisprudential basis tothe registration of real rights on immovables． Especially as bonds are now paperless， registrationnot only recognizes or confirms the owner’s rights， but also has the function of preventing others from infringing on the holder’s property rights and interests． In this sense， bond registration bears resemblance to the equity registration system in the Securities Law． So specific rules of bond registration can be formulated with reference to the rules of equity registration． Bond registration rules， like other civil property registration rules such as immovable registration rules， fall into the category of special civil rules and exist as special laws under the civil law system．

　　1.Confirmation of bond rights through bond registration

　　Bond registration is intended to recognize who is the bond rights holder and who can exercise the rights on a bond． In essence， what it regulates still is the relationship between a person and an object． The Civil Code also recognizes rights as an object of real rights． The nature of bond registration as a kind of rights confirmation is explicitly stipulated in the current laws and regulations． For example， Article 19 of theInterim Measures for the Administration of the Depository of Central Government Bonds of the People’s Republic of Chinasets out that “the balance stated in the depository account is the only legal proof indicating the amount of central government bonds （CGBs） owned by a customer”． In the context of paperless securities， a registration system is， therefore， required for making known to the public the property rights on paperless securities and registered securities．

　　2.Explicit legal provisions for the registration of pledged bonds

　　Article 441 of the Civil Code clearly stipulates the pledge of paperless bonds， which goes “the pledge on a bond is created at the time when the certificate of bond rights is delivered to the pledgee， or， in the absence of such a certificate， at the time when the pledge is registered．” Under the traditional real rights law， immovables could only be mortgaged， and the registration of mortgage isused as the basis for the rights confirmation； ordinary movables and rights could only be pledged， and the pledge of a movableisconfirmed upon the delivery of such a movable，and the pledge of a right is confirmed upon the delivery of the certificate of such a right or the registration of such a right （in the absence of the certificate）． This article carries at least two messages explicitly：

　　First， the Civil Code includes paperless bonds in the scope of regulation in Book Two： Real Rights． It is easy to transfer the ownership of paperless bonds， a characteristic that is shared by movables． Therefore， bonds are regulated with the legal framework of pledge together with movables， and listed as “the pledge on a right” separately． At the same time， in the absence of special provisions in the law， they are subject to the relevant provisions of the pledge on a movable， and still fall into the category of pledge in the establishment of security rights．

　　Second， the Civil Code in Book Two： Real Rights clarifies that the pledge of a paperless bond is confirmed through registration． Although the security rights of bonds take the form of pledge， the pledge of paperless bonds is confirmed when the pledge is registered． By contrast， the pledge of a traditional movable is confirmed upon the delivery of such a movable． This attests to the Civil Code’s clear position on the registration of paperless bonds． The setting of security itself constitutes an important part of the collection of bond rights． Furthermore， bonds as a type of collateral play an increasingly prominent role． Given that the Civil Code has clearly provided the pledge of paperless bonds， the legal interpretation of bond registration should follow its basic provisions as a whole．

　　3.Bond registration should follow the principles of public disclosure and public trust

　　The bond registration system shares the same jurisprudential basis as the real rights registration system． The registration system is a method used to publish real rights in the civil law system， which takes public disclosure and public trust as two basic principles． The principle of public disclosure is a basic principle established by the legislator in the real rights law with the aim of making the legal relationship of real rights clearer and ensuring the safety of legal transactions． The principle of publicly disclosing real rights means that， the real rights on either a movable or an immovable should be known from the outside． When a real right is created， modified， transferred， or extinguished due to juridical acts， it must be made known to the outside world through legal means． Otherwise， there would be no legal effects． The principle of public trust is based on an assumption that the person who relies on the external existence of a real right will maintain such reliance on the appearance， even if it disagrees with what the actual right is． The principle of public disclosure is to make people “know”， while the principle of public trust is to make people “believe”．

　　4.The principle of centralized and unified bond registration

　　The Securities Law provides the positioning and functionality of a securities registration and settlement institution， setting out the principle of centralized securities registration． Article 145 stipulates that a securities registration and settlement institution shall provide the centralized registration， depository， and settlement services for securities transactions． Article 148 prescribes that the securities traded on stock exchanges shall be operated through a nationally centralized and unified mode． Article 151 provides that a securities registration and settlement institution shall affirm the fact that a person holds securities according to the results of securities registration and settlement． Scholars generally believe that according to the Securities Law， the registration by a securities registration and settlement institution means the confirmation of the attribution of securities rights． However， not all types of bonds are covered by the Securities Law in China． Despite neither being covered by the Securities Law， the centralized confirmation of registered bonds has been explicitly stipulated in a host of departmental rules or normative documents， including the Interim Measures for the Administration of the Depository of Central Government Bonds of the People’s Republic of China， the Administrative Measures for the Issuance of Local Government Bonds， and the Administrative Measures for Bond Registration， Depository， and Settlement in the Interbank Bond Market． Besides， the Securities Investment Fund Law of the People’s Republic of Chinaalso recognizes that the subscription of fund shares shall take effect when such shares are confirmed by a registration institution．

　　In terms of public law relations， the centralized registration， establishment， and formulation of business rules by a securities registration and settlement institution require authorization from laws and regulations or administrative authorities． The Securities Law should be adopted as the supreme authorization norm． The Securities Law clearly stipulates that a securities registration and settlement institution provides centralized registration services for securities transactions and performs functions such as securities account opening and registration of securities holders． At the same time， the Securities Law specifies that the establishment of a securities registration and settlement institution as well as the formulation of its charter and business rules shall be subject to approval of the securities regulatory authority under the State Council． The act of securities registration itself has attributes of both public and private law． When it comes to the legality and uniformity of a registration institution and the act of registration， the attribute of public law is so apparent that the institution shall carry out related businesses upon the authorization of laws and regulations or administrative authorities． It should be noted that the relevant lower-level laws and regulations in the field of bonds must be consistent with the principle of centralized registration established by the Securities Law． In other words， bond registration and settlement institutions shall make sure their acts of bond registration are statutory and uniform， and bond registration as a statutory function shouldn’t be delegated to other institutions． The relevant departmental regulations and normative documents of the Ministry of Finance （“the MOF”） and the PBOC mentioned above have also indicated the centralized authority of bond registration． In this sense， they are in line with the Securities Law．

　　5.Extraterritorial laws and regulations concerning bond registration

　　Judging from the legislative practice outside of China， the legal effects of securities registration are provided by specific legislation． This means it does not rely exclusively on the real rights system or the contractual system in the traditional civil law system．

　　（1） The United States （the US）． The Uniform Commercial Code（the UCC） in Chapter 8 creates the concept of “security entitlement”to recognize the rights and interests of investors in a multi-tiered custody and indirect holding system． A security entitlement is essentially a type of property rights that describes a package of rights and duties between the security entitlement holder and the securities intermediary that directly holds the securities． Chapter 8 of the UCC also provides for the ways to transfer the rights and interests on paperless securities． Pursuant to Section 8-501， a person acquires a security entitlement when a securities intermediary indicates by book entry that a financial asset has been credited to the person’s securities account．

　　（2） The United Kingdom （the UK）． In 2001， the UK formally enforced the Uncertificated Securities Regulations 2001， a piece of specific legislation on paperless securities． In Article 2， it firstly defines the scope of securities， including all types of shares， bonds， units of collective investment schemes， depository receipts （DRs）， and interests in securities． Article 24 of the Regulations provides for the effect of entries on registers， and paragraph 6 of this article specifies that an entry on an operator register which records a person as holding unitsof a security in uncertificated form shall be evidence of such title to the units．

　　（3） Japan． Japan has adopted the Act on Account Allocation of Debentures， Shares， etc．， which provides for the ways in which debentures， central government bonds， and local government bonds are certified． Articles 76， 101， and 113 of the Act set out the rights of persons to legally hold the book-entry corporate bonds， central government bonds， and local government bonds entered or recorded in their accounts． Articles 73， 98 and 113 of the Act stipulate that the transfer of the aforementioned bonds will be invalid unless it is expressly recorded in accounts， a provision that establishes the effectiveness of bond registration． Article 24 of the Stock Custody and Transfer Act （1984）provides that participants and customer accounts are presumed to have co-ownership of shares held in custody given the number of shares recorded in their accounts．

　　（4） Germany． The German Electronic Securities Act（Gesetz zur Einführung von elektronischen Wertpapieren，eWpG） entered into force in June 2021， which provides the legal basis for trading rights through an electronic securities register and adds the content related to the encrypted securities register． Article 1 of the Act limits electronic securities to bearer bonds． According to Article 2， for “electronic securities”， physical certificates shall be replaced by entries in an electronic securities register maintained by an authorized central registration institution． In this way， an entry in an electronic securities register is effectively equivalent to the “delivery” of a traditional movable． Article 25 stipulates that the beneficiary won’t lose its ownership of an electronic security until it is transferred to the buyer． Article 27 provides that the registered holder of an electronic security is presumed to be the owner of that security．

　　In summary， foreign jurisdictionshave all enacted special legislation beyond the real rights system and contractual system of the civil law framework to establish the legal rules for securities， especially paperless securities， and to clarify the effectiveness of registration by a CSD． At the same time， bonds are included in the scope of securities in almost all these special legislation on securities．

　　iii.The registration practice of a bond registration， depository and settlement institution in China： the case of CCDC

　　Bond registration includes two aspects． One is the registration of the object， which means the registration of a bond as a product or the registration of bond elements． It is intended to ensure that a bond is genuine and avoid risk events such as excess issuance． The other is the registration of the subject， which consists of the registration of the issuer’s debt and the registration of the investor’s claim， with the aim to confirm the debtor-creditor relationship between the issuer and the holder． Suchregistration has special significance for CGBs and local government bonds （LGBs）． By registering investors’ claims， regulators can keep track of investors in real time， achieve see-through supervision， and make sure the state can take countermeasures in case of extreme geopolitical events， a prerequisite for preventing financial risks effectively． In this sense， registering issuers’ debts is not only an objective need for governments to carry out debt management， but also an important way to maintain the stability of the bond market and even the entire financial market． Registration exists in many bond operationssuch as issuance and trading． Specifically， the registration in the issuance process is one of the bond registration services set out in the Bond Issuance， Registration， and Agency Redemption Service Agreement that is signed by and between China Central Depository & Clearing Co．， Ltd． （CCDC）and the issuer． So it involves the registration of the subject and the registration of bond elements． The registration in the trading process is the recording of information on the bond account by CCDC， whichincludes the registration of business changes， the registration of restrictions， and so on． The bondholder account replaces the possession of traditional paper bonds to certify the bondholder’s right to trade bonds． The registration of changes in and restrictions on the bond account isnecessaryfor the change of bond holdings in the trading process of paperless bonds to take effect．

　　In practice， whentwopartiesconfirma bond trading instruction in theChina Foreign Exchange Trade System， the trading contract comes into effect． At the time when the instruction is transmitted to the back office for the delivery versus payment （DVP）settlement， the contract enters the stage of performance． If funds and bonds are in full， both sides are settled． After the transaction is completed， CCDC， as the registration institution， maintains the account of bothtradingparties given the transaction results， by making addition to or deduction from the corresponding bond account to complete the confirmation of bond rights． This is explicitly stipulated in the current laws and regulations． For example， Article 7 of the Rules on Issuing the Book-entry Central Government Bonds by Tender in 2021provides that a bond depository institution shall register and keep in custody the bonds for subscribers after the MOF receives the bond issue proceeds． Therefore， bond registration is targeted at rights， instead of contracts， so it can publicize the ownership of rights and realize a change in rights with legal force3． The establishment of a debtor-creditor relationship is based on private consent． In other words， such a relationship can take effect after both parties reach an agreement， a process which has nothing to do with registration and does not need to be registered4． Bond registration performed by CCDC is the act that a neutral third party takes to confirm the rights of a bond that has already been issued and exists． The bond information to be registered includes the elements of the bond， the bond holder， and so on．

　　iv.Legislative proposals for the bond registration system

　　1.The Civil Code should be the theoretical basis for the legal force of bond registration

　　The development of bonds has undergone a transition from being paper-based to paperless． In the paper-based era， bonds werephysical property， and the changes in and affiliation of their rights weresubject to the relevant provisions set out in Book Two： Real Rights of the Civil Code． In the paperless era， although bonds have changed externally， their nature of property rights， legal relationship， and core rights remain unchanged． So bonds should be interpreted with the basic theory of publishing real rights． Book Two： Real Rights of the Civil Code alsohasclear stipulation aboutregistering rights as objects of real rightsand registration of pledged paperless bonds．Bond registration， as a form of securities rights registration， should have the same legal status as stock registration in the Securities Law． However， bond rights， like stock rights， are special rights of securitization， which need to be regulated by special laws rather than the Civil Code.s

　　2.The Securities Law and related laws/rules should be revised or improved

　　（1） The Securities Law expands the coverage of securities to bonds and ascertains the legal force of securities registration and registration of changes in securities． First， bringing bonds under the coverage of securities is the premise of unifying the rules on the registration of stocks， bonds， and other securities． The Securities Act of 1933 in the US can serve as a reference in this regard． It defines and enumerates securities in Article 2 at length， covering stocks and bonds． Secondly， Article 151 of the Securities Law of China stipulates that the fact that a security is held by a person shall be confirmed bythe results of securities registration and settlement． Some scholars argue that this article provides the legal basis for confirming the ownership of securities rights through registration． However， it is not clear whether this provision is legally for or against registration． To avoid ambiguity， it is suggested that we should make clearerthe position about the effectiveness of securities registration by referring to the pertinent provisions for the transactions of central government bonds in Japan． It is recommended to add the following provision： “Once a securities relationship is recorded and registered， it becomes legally effective． The registration of securities and changes in securities by securities registration and settlement institutions is the way to publish the effectiveness of securities and changes in them”．

　　（2） Special legislation on paperless securities may be enacted to establish the basic rules for securities registration and confirmation of related rights． With the progress of the times， paperless property becomes an important part of social wealth． For some typical， huge-value， and clearly-regulated paperless property rights， China has gradually established sectoral laws for separate regulation， such as the Securities Law， the Copyright Law， and the Patent Law． These sectoral laws for the confirmation of property rights all adopt the general theory of registration in the real rights law， which upholds the legal force of registration and the unity of the registration institution． The interbank bond market of China is huge in size． Bonds turn out to be a typical example of paperless property rights in legal attributes， actual conditions， and trading logic． Especially， marketable securities， governed by the laws same as stocks， should get the method for rights confirmation and the unity of rights confirmation institutions interpreted in the same way． There is no reason to break through the basic requirements put for by the registration theory in securities laws orseek decentralized confirmation of rights in the bond market．

　　3.The unity and uniqueness of a bond registration institution

　　On the one hand， the principle of public disclosure and public trust governing real rights putsfor the requirement for the unity of the bond registration institution． The legal systems and theories about real rights are devoted to determining the ownership of property and emphasizing the principles of public disclosure and public trust． As to the property where registration is the means of establishing rights， the register functions as the only basis for rights confirmation． So the credibility of the register turns out the core of the entire registration system． To ensure the security of transactions， it is vital to have a unifiedregistration institution． Registration itself bears many types of value， including the value insecurity， the value inefficiency， and the value inprotection． The realization of such value requires a unified registration institution． One of the basic rules of registration in real rights law is to maintain unity in registration principles， basis， procedures， effectiveness， registration institution， and registers5． Marketable securities is nowhere near unified registrationnow． For example， in China book-entry CGBs must be registered with CCDC for pledge， while corporate bonds listed and traded on stock exchanges must be registered with China Securities Depository and Clearing Co．， Ltd （CSDC） for pledge．

　　On the other hand， from the perspective of trading security in the market， the public nature of bond trading requires bond registration to be unique and authoritative． Information disclosure is a core legal regime underpinning the securities market， which was originally established to address information asymmetries． Manyjurisdictionshave stipulated in their securities laws that the publicly issued securities shall meet high requirements for information disclosure． The jurisprudential spirit behind this is to impose more information disclosure obligations on the transactions of the public products that involve a wide range of stakeholders， reduce the degree of information asymmetry， and make the trading of securities products look convincing to the public． The traditional commercial law falls into the category of private laws． All commercial products and transactions involving the public interest， therefore， need to be regulated by securities law or other special laws． Bonds， especially publicly traded government bonds， are also in the public nature， which has been regulated by Article 2 of the Securities Law． In this sense， their public nature is defined by the act of listing． However， there is still considerable controversy in the academic circle as to whether the identification of public nature should be limited to the criteria for public offering set out in the Securities Law． The public nature of bond trading， especially that in which ordinary investors can participate， is undeniably obvious． It is this public nature that requires the authoritativeness and uniqueness of the channel to ascertain rights and the path to information disclosure． The uniqueness of bond registration means that there is only one registration institutionin the bond market， only one set of registration rules， and only one legal consequence． In the early days of China’s bond market， bonds were registered and kept in custody by different financial institutions． Consequently， there werea series of fraudulent acts such as false issuance， excess issuance， illicit sale and misappropriation， which caused severe financial risks and jeopardized the order of the bond market and even the entire financial system． Practice has shown that the unique bond registration could better guarantee the safety of bond transactions in the market， establish the authoritative image of bond registration， and raise the awareness of rules and responsibilities among bond issuers and holders．

　　Studyon the Jurisprudential Basis for Bond Depository

　　i.Practice in bond depository

　　In practice， bond depository business involves the custodian services provided by CSDs for bond investors as well as the bond custodian services provided by custodian banks for their clients． Bond custodian services provided by different entities are varying in form butsimilar in essence．

　　Formally， when investors put their bonds in the custody of CSDs in their own name， and the CSDprovides bond custodian services directly to bond investors， it is thesingle-level depository structure． In contrast， the bond depository business which is provided by intermediaries such as custodian banks requires intermediaries to put the bonds in the custody of higher-level intermediaries in their own name until they reach the CSD． This is themulti-level depository structure． In the international practice， different markets have diversified institutional arrangements for the protection of bond investors in light of their respective legal system． Two examples in this regard are the co-ownership system in Germany and the securities rights system in the US． A rough look at the international practice reveals that there aresingle-level and multi-level structures．

　　Whether the custodian serviceis provided by aCSD or a custodian bank， theessenceis the same： the act of furnishing bond holders with such services as inquiry， pledge， interest payment and redemption， corporate actions as well as safeguarding and managing the rights and interests of bond holders． Under the multi-level depository mode， the custodian bank provides secondary custodian services for its clients； at the same time， the bank needs to put the bonds of its clients and its proprietary bonds in the custody of the CSD．

　　While focusing on efficiency and opening-up， China’s financial market will hold on to the bottom line of incurring no systematic financial risk． For the security of the financial market， the provision of single-level custodian services by the CSD for bond investors directly is an arrangement that best meets the security requirements． A CSD， as one of China’s financial market infrastructures （FMIs）， provides registration， depository， settlement， and other FMI services for bond issuers and investors， thus capable of offering an institutional guarantee for bond issuance， trading， and post-trade operations． While ensuringthe security of bond investors， thiscan also workwith financial regulators to meet the security requirements for the nation-widefinancial market．

　　ii.Legal nature of bond depository

　　Internationally， the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures （PFMI） co-released by the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems （CPSS） and the International Organization of Securities Commissions （IOSCO） in 2012 set out specific guidelines in principle for CSDs． It requires that “CSDs should have appropriate rules and procedures to help ensure the integrity of securities issues， minimize and manage the risks associated with the safekeeping and transfer of securities”， “CSDs should protect assets against custody risk through appropriate rules and procedures consistent with the legal framework”， and “where supported by the legal framework， CSDs should also support operationally the segregation of securities belonging to a participant’s customers on the participant’s books”． As can be seen， the international community has not made clear requirements on the legal relationship underlying the custody behavior of CSDs． By allowing jurisdictions to develop applicable business rules on the basis of their legal systems， it only puts forth explicit requirements on the effects or objectives of such rules， i.e．， to reduce the risks associated with the safekeeping and transfer of securities and to protect the rights and interests of participants．

　　In the bond market， there are differences in the legal relationships between varying participating entities and FMIs． Specifically， the bond custodian services provided by a CSD for bond investors include account opening， inquiry， loss report， freezing， pledge， ownership transfer， dividend distribution on an agency basis， corporate actions， and information consultation． It can be seen from the business model of CCDC that the principal-agent relationship forms between CCDC and investors in the business of bond depository．

　　An investor who becomes a bond holder after subscription commissions a CSD to provide itself with the bond custodian， settlement， and other services． In this case， the investor and the CSD form a principal-agent relationship through the commission contract． As commissioned by the investor， the CSD will provide its bond account with custodian services． All custodian acts taken by the CSD follow the bondholder’s instructions． Specifically， the CSD makes corresponding changes to the information recorded in the bond account according to the bond holder’s instructions． The customer service agreement between the CSD and the bond holder also specifies that “the CS has no right to dispose of the bonds in the account” without the bondholder’s instructions． Thus， for a CSD， the current depository business is to execute the bondholders’ instructions． The CSD shall execute the instructions of a bondholder in a timely， accurate， and complete manner． It shall be liable for any failure to fulfill the above contractual obligations． The rights and obligations between the two parties are relative and constitute a principal-agent relationship through the commission contract legally．

　　From the perspective of legal relationship， a CSD and a bondholder enter into the service contract regarding bond depository on an equal legal basis each exercising rights and performing obligations in accordance with the contract． However， it should be noted that the CSD has a clear administrative mandate to maintain the bond registration and depository system． For example， theInterim Measures for the Management of Central Government Bond Depositoryissued by the MOF clearly stipulates that CCDC is authorized to establish and operate the CGB depository system in accordance with the Measures and the not-for-profit principle． At the same time， the CSD exercises rights and assumes duties within the scope of authorization． For example， the Administrative Measures for Bond Registration， Depository， and Settlement in the Interbank Bond Marketissued by the PBOC specifies that a bond registration， depository and settlement institution shall perform a number of functions in bond registration， depository and settlement businesses， which include supervising the secondary depository business carried out by the banks for bonds traded over the bank counter， conducting daily monitoring of bond registration， depository， and settlement activities， and reporting to the PBOC and dealing with major violations in a timely manner．

　　iii.The current legal regime of China is hardly commensurate with a trust-based nominal holding system

　　Multi-level depository formally describes the structure of CSDs， secondary custodians， and bond investors in the bond depository business chain． It involves the legal relationships of multiple relative parties， which may be the principal-agent relationship or the trustrelationship． However， under the existing legal framework， the trust-based notional holding system cannot be directly applied to China．

　　1.Legal relationship in commissioning and trust

　　Article 919 of the Civil Code defines that a “commission contract”is acontract whereby the principaland the agentagree that the agenthandles affairs of the principal． The Trust Law of the People’s Republic of China（hereinafter referred to as “the Trust Law”） stipulates that trust is the act in which the trustor on the basis of confidence in the trustee， entrusts its property rights to the trustee and the trustee manages or disposes of the property rights in its own name as per the intentions of the trustor and for the benefit of the beneficiary or for specific purposes． The relationship between commissioning and trust is manifested in the following aspects：

　　First， seen from the connotation and extension of the legal concept， commissioning covers a wider scope than trust． In a trustrelationship， the trustor on the basis of confidence in the trustee entrusts its property to the trustee for management． Especially in some trust relationships， the contracts signed by theparties are not explicitly expressed as “trust contracts”；instead， they are usuallytitled“commission contracts”． However， in identifying the legal relationship between the two parties， the judicial authority will recognize it as a trust-basedrelationship if the act is substantially consistent with trust． Therefore， seen from the connotation and extension of the legal concepts of commissioning and trust alone， commissioning covers a lager scope than trust． The establishment of a trustrelationship is definitely based on the commissioning of the trustor， while the act in which the trustor commissions the trustee to handle its affairs does not necessarily constitute a trustrelationship．

　　Second， seen from the assumption of legal responsibilities， the trustee in a trustrelationship needs to bear more stringent and diversified legal responsibilities than the agent in the principal-agent relationship． In the principal-agent relationship， the agentonly carries out activities within the scope of the principal’s explicit authorization， the legal responsibilities arising from the agent’s actions are borne by the principal， and the agentonly has to bear the contractual obligations agreed upon between itself and the principal． In a principal-agent relationship involving a third party， even when the agentacts without or beyond the power of agency， the legal responsibilities arising from such an act shall be borne by the principalto the opposite party if the party has reason to believe that the agenthas the power of agency． In a trustrelationship， the trustee， on the one hand， accepts the commissioning of the trustor to handle the affairs for the best interests of the beneficiary． In this case， the trusteeshall assume obligations to the beneficiary and trustor， which include， in addition to those stipulated in the contract， the fiduciary duties based on the trustrelationship with the duty of loyalty as the core． The fiduciary duties mainly include the duty of care for a good manager， the duty of loyalty， the duty of separate management， the duty of personal execution， the duty of fairness， the duty of record keeping and reporting， and so on． On the other hand， the trustee， when managing the trust property in its own name， may constitute a new legal relationship with a third party， and needs to assume contractual or （and） tort liabilities to the third party． Therefore， in a legal relationship of bond depository constructed on the basis of trust， the trustee shall assume the fiduciary obligations that are based on thetrustrelationship， as well as the contractual obligations formed in carrying out trust property management activities． The legal responsibilities arising from this relationship are more stringent and diversified．

　　2.Jurisprudential challenges facing the application ofthe trust theory inbond depository

　　In jurisdictionswith mature trust systems， such as the UK and the US， bond depository adopts the trust relationship as its legal basis． Meanwhile， the mature trust systems make it possible to protect bondholders under the multi-level depository structure． However， the construction of a trustrelationship for bond depository in China faces practical challenges in the context of the civil law theory and the Trust Law．

　　（1） The adoption of the trustrelationship in the commonlaw system has itsjurisprudential basis and pathdependency．

　　Trust is fairly flexibly defined in the commonlaw system， by placing emphasis on legal effects and imposing few restrictions on the types and functions of trust． First， it makes clear that trust is a confidence-basedrelationship． Second， it explicitly stipulates that the trustee enjoys the legal ownership of a certain property for the benefit of others， while the beneficiary enjoys the equitable ownership of that property． In the trust system set out by the commonlaw， the composition of trust property rights manifests the concept of “dual ownership”． That is to say， inthe common lawtrust system， both the holder and the custodianof a bond can enjoy the ownership of the bond in custody， which makes it possible for the holder to hold the bond directly．

　　（2） The dilemma of applyingthe trust relationship inthe continental law system

　　The traditional civil law doctrine of separating occupation from ownership has no power to explain the property rights in the trustrelationship under the common law system． For the continental law system， there is no distinction between general law and law of equity． The concept of unitary ownership in the Roman law is inherited， the continental law holds thatownership itselfshould beindivisible． The fundamental difference in the ownership system leads to the distinctive arrangements for the rights and obligations of the parties in the trustrelationship set out in the trust laws of China and the UK， for example． When adoptingthe trust system， the continental law system has made technical accommodations， that is，to construct the trust property rights roughly according to the separation of real rights from claims． In other words， the trustee is granted the ownership to the trust property， and meanwhile the beneficiary is given the beneficiary rights to the trust property--hasaccess to trust benefits， whichmakes it more likea claim． For example， the exercise of the beneficiary rights is only targeted at the trustee in principle．

　　（3） It is difficult for China to apply the Trust Law directly to its bond depository

　　Compared with the common law system where trust is flexibly defined， the continental law is characterized by the strictness unique to a statutory law， and it tends to define legal concepts based on necessary conditions． According to the definition of trust in China’s Trust Law， a trustrelationship between two parties is recognized only when all thenecessary conditionsspecified in the law arein place． This provision limits the types and functions of trust， which is manifested in the following three aspects． Firstly， according to Articles 8 and 9 of the Trust Law， the establishment of a trust， as a kind of legal act in form， requires a written trust contract． In practice， abond depository agreement does not includeintention to establish a trust． Secondly， atrust requires transferring the property rights． In bond depository， there is no such transfer， as the bondinvestor still enjoys the bond rights and interests． The bond investor， as the trustor， shall havethe ownership of the bond after putting it in the custody of a bond depository． Meanwhile， the beneficiary inthe depository business is also the bond investor． Thirdly， according to Article 2 of the Trust Law， trust is the act in which the trustee manages or disposesof the trust property for the benefit of the beneficiary or for specific purposes． The property rights are commissioned through a trust， which include the right to use， the beneficiary right， and the right to manage and dispose of the property． In contrast， the yield of a bond has nothing to do with the management behavior of the trustee， because the payment of interest on the bond is promised and fulfilled by the issuer to the investor．

　　iv.Mode options and legislative proposals for the legal relationshipinbond depository

　　1.To make clear the legal status of the bond registration， depository and settlement institution in related laws

　　First， it is important to indicate the legal status of the bond registration， depository and settlement institution in the Securities Law or the special laws on FMI． Article 148 of the Securities Law specifies the registration and settlement of securities traded on stock exchanges shall adopt a centralized and unified regime． However，there are many types of bonds and the majority of them aretraded in the interbank bond market． So the establishment of a unified bond registration， depository and settlement system in the bond market is necessary and needs to bemade clear through the Securities Law or special laws on FMIin the future．

　　Second， it is advised to make clear thatthe basic legal relationship among CSDs，bondholders and other market entities in the bond depository business is the principal-agent relationship， and provide standard wording relate to such relationship． At present， the exchange market describes the act in which a securities registration and settlement institutionisentrusted by a securities firmto put in the centralized custody the securities of the securities firmand its clients， get paid with dividends by proxy， and render other rights and interests maintenance services as “safekeeping”， which in the substance is a principal-agent relationship， just like the “depository” in the interbank bond market． Article 147 of the Securities Law lists “safekeepingand transfer of securities” as one of the functions for a securities registration and settlement institution． Though the Securities Law does not explicitly specify the principal-agent relationship between the securities registration and settlement institution and other market entities， practice shows that courts holdthat CSDC is a legal person that provides centralized registration， depository and settlement services for securities transactions； itreceives instructions from securities dealers to complete transaction settlements． Therefore， the two enter into a principal-agent relationship． In the relevant judicial decisions， the courts have identified CSDC as the agentin a principal-agent relationship， who acts upon the instructions from theprincipaland is not liable for the unauthorized disposal of investment assets by the trustor6．

　　2.The principal-agent relationship is secure forbondholders

　　The single-level depository between a CSD and a bondholder is the flattestinaccount structure and the simplestinlegal relationship， whichiseffectively secure forthe bondholder inthe principal-agent relationship． Pursuant to the current rules for bond registration and depository，theCSDkeeps the register of bond holders as commissioned by the issuer． At the same time， the bond holder directly open a bond account withtheCSD， and commissionsthe CSDto maintain the rights and interests as an agent． In the holder account structure it manages，theCSD， as commissioned by each and every bondholder， keepsseparate accounts and books for thebondholders， thus achieving segregation of accounts and ensuring the authenticity， integrity， and security of bondholder accounts．

　　3.The trustrelationship can be adoptedin line with the pertinent laws and regulatory requirements

　　In the future， with the diversified development of the registration and settlement business， the trustrelationship may be usedin linewith the actual needs of business development in due coursewhere the trust relationship is confirmed by law and required by regulatory policies．

　　On the one hand， taking the trust law as a piece of special legislation within the civil law system requires transforming the aforementioned model of real rights and claims towardsa model that accommodates the essence oftrust， so as to avoid theuniversalapplication of the civil law rules on real rights and claims． For example， the trustee’s ownershipcan beimposed with dual constraints． First， it should beclearly stipulated that the trustee’s exercise of ownership is for the benefits of the beneficiary and should be constrained by beneficiary rights． Second， it should beclearly prescribed that the trustee’s exercise of ownership should comply with the trust agreement and the trustee’s obligations under the Trust Law． The beneficial rightsshould bedesigned to have certain effects of real rights through the independent trust property （e.g．， the right of exclusion in the event of the trustee’s insolvency and theownershipof trust property upon the termination of a trust）．

　　On the other hand， the legal relationship of different parties should be clarified in the form of agreement， and the trustee needs to assume more stringent obligations． The principal-agent relationship is secure and efficient forbondholdersin terms ofsafekeeping/transferofbonds and maintaining bond-related rights and interests． However， given the future development of the bond market and especially the potentialsubstantialuseof bonds as collateral， the CSD， as acentralized and professionalFMIservice provider， will be able toplay a pivotal role in innovation anddevelopment of the bond market． In this sense， to be given a wider range of rights by virtue of its legal status as an authorized custodian is acrucialrequisiteto the CSD to play that role to the fullest． After comparing the status and scope of rights of the CSD in the trustrelationship and the principal-agent relationship， it can be found that the CSD as the trustee in a trustrelationshipcanhave greater discretion and autonomy in managing the trust property （bonds under custody）， and shouldalso assumemore stringent obligations． （This paper is part of the research results of the Research on the Registration， Depository and Settlement Issues in the Chinese Bond Market undertaken by CCDC R&D Center．）

　　The English version is for reference only， and the original Chinese version shall prevail in case of any inconsistency．

　　Notes：

　　1． According to the basic classification of civil rights in the Civil Code， China adopts the legal system where occupation is separated from ownership． Claims and real rights are two relative concepts．

　　2． Ma Junju， Mei Xiaying． On Theoretic and Legislative Issues of Intangible Property [J]． China Legal Science， 2001（2）．

　　3． Ye Lin， Zhang Hao． Connotation and Legal Status of Dematerialised Securities--Also in View of the Natureof Securities [J]． Journal of Henan University （Social Science）， 2009， 49（2）．

　　4． In the basic theory of jurisprudence， the occurrence of contractual relations and the entry into force of real rights are two completely separate acts． For example， trading of a house involves two acts： signing a contract of trading the house and registering the house． The former act is regulated by the contract law， aimed to solve various problems arising between the two parties in the performance of the contract． The contract enters into force when both parties reach a consensus． The latter act is regulated by the real rights law， aimed to identify who is the owner of the rights to the house． Only upon registration， can the rights take effect． In the opinion of anyone other than the parties to the contract， only the right holder on the register is the owner of the house．

　　5． Zhao Minjing． Unification of Immovable Registration Authorities in the Perspective of the Real Rights System [D]． China University of Political Science and Law， 2011．

　　6． Refer to Paper of Civil Judgment H.Y.ZH.M.S．（SH）．CH.Z． No.27 in 2009．

　　References

　　[1] Li Dongfang． Research on the Jurisprudential Basis of Securities Registration and Settlement [J]． Journal of CUPL， 2018 （5）．

　　[2] Wang Jing． Paperless Securities and Evolution of Securities Law [M]． Beijing： China Legal Publishing House， 2009．

　　[3] Wang Liming， Yang Lixin， Wang Yi， Cheng Xiao． Civil Law （Sixth Edition） [M]． Beijing： Law Press China． 2020．

　　[4] Wang Zejian． Theory and Case Study of Civil Law （Combined Volume） [M]． Beijing： Peking University Press， 2015．

　　◇Authors from： CCDC R&D Center

　　◇Editors in charge： LU Ningning and LIU Ying