日本金融資産證券化之法制架構與啓發－兼論我國金融資産證券化之立法取向－

The Legal Framework and Enlightenment of Financial Assets-Backed Securitization in Japan-A Criticism of the Legislative Trend to Financial Assets-Backed Securitization in Taiwan

王志誠(Chih-Cheng Wang)

《中正大學法學集刊》 5期 (2001/09) Pp. 207-261

https://doi.org/10.30094/NCCULJ.200109.0004

摘要

日本直到「特定目的公司法」或「資產流動化法」制定或修正前。早期主要是針對金融市場之發展狀況，分別就不同之金融資產，採行分散立法之模式，而制定「抵押證券法」、「抵押證券業規制法」及「特定債權事業規制法」等各種不同之流動化法制。同時透過「信託法」及「信託業法」所建立之信託法制，日本亦早已藉由信託架構推動住宅貸款債權流動化。其後，「特定目的公司法」則採取有別於過去住宅貸款債權信託或不動產小口化商品等資產證券化或流動化之模式，原則上並未在架構設計上，運用信託原理，而是創設具有特殊導管功能之特定目的公司制度，作為資產流動化之穿針引線工具，並輔以行政監督及刑事處罰等關聯性設計，以確保特定目的公司得以適正經營。惟由於日本「特定目的公司法」所採行之架構設計，其實際運作模式頗為複雜，且觀諸歐美各先進國家有關金融資產證券化之實務經驗，皆於特定目的公司模式外，尚併採行信託模式，以增加金融資產證券化之管道。至於在「資產流動化法」修正之後，日本更參考歐美各先進國家之實務經驗，明文確立特定目的公司制度與特定目的信託制度為金融資產證券化之雙軌導管機制，可謂集日本數十年來致力於推動資產證券化法制之大成。另外，為徹底解決金融資產流動化或證券化所致生之特殊法律問題，以達到保護投資人及消費者之權益，更分別制定「債權讓渡特例法」及「債權管理回收業特別措置法」。

關鍵字

資産證券化 ； 金融資産證券化 ； 投資人保護 ； 受託人 ； 受託機構 ； 受託銀行 ； 抵押證券 ； 特殊目的公司 ； 特定目的公司 ； 特定目的信託 ； 資産擔保證券 ； 資産對應證券 ； 受益證券 ； 資産基礎證券 ； 債權管理 ； 債權收取 ； 金融資産管理 ； 信用評等 ； 信用增強

並列摘要

Not until the legislation and amendment of the ”Special Purpose Company Law,” and ”Assets-Backed Circulation Law,” did Japan, according to the development of the financial market, with different financial assets and separated lawmaking models, legislate for various circulation law systems such as ”Mortgage Security Law,” ”Mortgage Security Business Regulative Law,” ”Special Debt Business Regulative Law,” and etc. At the same time, with the trust law system established by the ”Trust Law” and ”Trust Industry Law,” Japan used the trust framework to carry out “House Loan Debt Circulation.” Later, the ”Special Purpose Company Law” adopted a different model from the previous models of assets-backed securitization or circulation, such as ”House Loan Debt Trust,” ”Real Estate Divided Commodities,” and so on. Actually, this model did not make use of the trust principle in its framework; instead, it created a special purpose company system with special conduit-function as stimulation to assets-backed circulation. Moreover, assisted by some related designs of administration supervisions and penal punishments, this model ensured that special purpose companies will run their businesses properly. However, the real operating model of the framework of the ”Special Purpose Company Law” was very complicated. Also, from the Western developed countries' practical experience of financial assets- backed securitization, we can learn that besides the model of special purpose company model, it is better to adopt trust model to increase the opportunities of financial assets-backed securitization. After the amendment of the ”Assets-Backed Circulation Law,” Japan even referred to Western developed countries' pragmatic experience to literally establish ”Special Purpose Company System,” and ”Special Purpose Trust System” as the dual-tracked conduit mechanism, which is just the extraordinary achievement of Japan's efforts to set assets-backed securitization into action in decades. In addition, in order to solve thoroughly the special legal problems caused by financial assets-backed circulation and securitization to protect the benefits of investors and consumers, Japan, then, legislated ”Debt Transferring Regulative Lave” and “Debt Management Withdrawal Special Law (Servicer Law)” respectively.

並列關鍵字

assets-backed securitization ； financial assets-backed securitization ； trustee ； special purpose company ； special purpose trust ； ABS ； ABCP ； MBS ； beneficiary security ； debt management ； credit enhancement ； credit ra