Business Department of Yunnan Branch of Agricultural Bank of China v. Shenzhen International Trust & Investment Company, Et Al
(Dispute over Securities Repurchase)@#
@#
@#
Supreme People's Court@#
Civil Judgment@#
Civil Judgment of the Supreme People's Court No. 87 (2000)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (Defendant in the first instance): Shenzhen International Trust & Investment Company, domiciled at International Trust Building, Hongling Middle Road, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province.@#
Legal Representative: Ye Lianjie, board chairman of the Company.@#
Authorized Agent: Tao Jianjun, lawyer of Shenzhen Jingtian Law Firm.@#
Authorized Agent: Sun Yiping, former employee of International Securities Investment Fund Department of Shenzhen International Trust & Investment Company (General).@#
Appellee (Plaintiff in the first instance): Business Department of Yunnan Branch of Agricultural Bank of China, domiciled at No. 132, Renmin West Road, Kunming City, Yunnan Province.@#
Person-in-charge: Lü Cunchang, general manager of the Business Department.@#
Authorized Agent: Yang Yang, deputy manager of Asset Preservation Department of the Business Department.@#
Authorized Agent: Hu Yunzhi, legal counselor of the Business Department.@#
Defendant in the first instance: Huanyu Securities Business Department of China Eagle Securities Co., Ltd., domiciled at No. 3, Hongling Middle Road, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province.@#
Person-in-charge: Liang Shuang, person-in-charge of the Business Department.@#
With regard to the case under the dispute with the Business Department of Yunnan Branch of Agricultural Bank of China (the appellee, hereinafter referred to as Yunnan Business Department of ABC), and Huanyu Securities Business Department of China Eagle Securities Co., Ltd. (a defendant in the first instance, hereinafter referred to as Huanyu Business Department of CESC) over securities repurchase, Shenzhen International Trust & Investment Company (the appellant, hereinafter referred to as Shenzhen ITIC) was dissatisfied with the No. 9 (1997) civil judgment of the Higher People's Court of Yunnan Province (hereinafter referred to as Yunnan Higher Court), and appealed to the present court. The present court formed a collegial panel according to the provisions of law, composed of Xi Xiaoming as the presiding judge, Jiang Wei as the judge, and Sha Ling as the acting judge, and then heard the case. Yin Jing was the court clerk to make the records. The case has now been finalized.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
It was verified by Yunnan Higher Court that: Securities Business Agency of Kunming Branch of Agricultural Bank of China (a former subordinate institution of Yunnan Business Department of ABC, hereinafter referred to as Securities Agency) concluded three “Contracts of Bargain on Securities Repurchase Trading” with Wuhan Trading Center of Shenzhen International Securities Investment Fund Department (hereinafter referred to as Wuhan Trading Center) separately on June 1, June 16, and June 29, 1995, setting forth that Securities Agency shall buy 13 million Yuan of securities, and Wuhan Trading Center shall repurchase such securities at the price of 104.80 Yuan per hundred Yuan of par value separately on September 30, October 16, and October 29, 1995. The three contracts also set forth that once Securities Agency transfers the money for buying the bonds, Wuhan Trading Center shall issue a receipt on authorized custody of bonds and send it to Securities Agency; once Wuhan Trading Center transfers the money for repurchasing the bonds, Securities Agency shall send the receipt in custody to Wuhan Trading Center; Wuhan Trading Center shall remit the money for repurchasing the bonds into Securities Agency's account as agreed upon, and if it delays in remitting the said money, it shall pay surcharge interest at the rate of 0.05 % per day, while if it delays by more than ten days, it shall be deemed as automatically waiving its rights, and Securities Agency shall be entitled to sell the bonds in custody, meanwhile Wuhan Trading Center shall not object in any way. In addition, both parties concluded a “Supplementary Agreement on Bonds Trading” regarding the 10 million Yuan of bonds under the above-mentioned contracts, setting forth that the commission shall be 160,000 Yuan. After the three contracts were concluded, Securities Agency separately remitted 5 million Yuan, 3 million Yuan and 5 million Yuan of money for buying the bonds to the account designated by Wuhan Trading Center, but Wuhan Trading Center did not issue the receipt on authorized custody of securities as agreed upon after receipt of the sums of money. However, after the contractual term expired, Wuhan Trading Center did not repurchase the said securities as agreed upon. After Securities Agency's press collection for several times, Wuhan Trading Center repaid 200,000 Yuan on July 31, 1996, and Shenzhen Tianyi Industry Joint Stock Limited Company repaid 3,200,000 Yuan from January 4 to August 28, 1997 on behalf of Wuhan Trading Center, and then Wuhan Trading Center again repaid 400,000 Yuan on November 10 and 11, 1997, but did not repay the remaining amount. On November 19, 1997, both parties concluded a “Repayment Plan”.@#
．．．．．．

中国农业银行云南省分行营业部诉深圳国际信托公司等证券回购纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】　　@#
企业分支机构的工作人员，持分支机构代表人签署并加盖公章的授权文件，经申请和公示，取得证券交易中心席位，并以申请证券交易中心席位时备案的业务专用章及个人名章，所为的确认证券交易行为，在该分支机构撤销后，应由其所在的企业承担民事责任。　　@#
最高人民法院@#
民事判决书@#
(2000)经终字第87号@#
@#
上诉人(原审被告)：深圳国际信托投资公司。住所地：广东省深圳市红岭中路国际信托大厦。@#
法定代表人：叶连捷，该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人：陶建军，深圳市经天律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人：孙逸平，原深圳国际信托投资总公司国际证券投资基金部职员。@#
被上诉人(原审原告)：中国农业银行云南省分行营业部。住所地：云南省昆明市人民西路132号。@#
负责人：吕存昌，该营业部总经理。@#
委托代理人：杨阳，该营业部资产保全部副经理。@#
委托代理人：胡云芝，该营业部法律顾问。@#
原审被告：大鹏证券有限责任公司环宇证券营业部。住所地：广东省深圳市红岭中路3号。@#
负责人：梁爽，该营业部负责人。@#
上诉人深圳国际信托投资公司(以下简称深圳国投)为与被上诉人中国农业银行云南省分行营业部(以下简称农行云南营业部)、原审被告大鹏证券有限责任公司环宇证券营业部(以下简称大鹏环宇营业部)证券回购纠纷一案，不服云南省高级人民法院(1997)云高经初字第9号民事判决，向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成由审判员奚晓明担任审判长，审判员姜伟、代理审判员沙玲参加的合议庭进行了审理，书记员尹静担任记录。本案现已审理终结。@#
@#
原审法院审理查明：农行云南营业部原下属机构中国农业银行昆明市分行有价证券业务代办处(以下简称证券代办处)分别于1995年6月1日、6月16日、6月29日，与深圳国际证券投资基金部武汉交易中心(以下简称基金部武汉交易中心)签订了三份《有价证券回购交易成交合同》，约定由证券代办处买入1300万元有价证券，基金部武汉交易中心应分别于1995年9月30日、10月16日、10月29日按每百元券104．80元的价格回购。该三份合同还约定证券代办处购券款一经划出，基金部武汉交易中心应开出债券代保管收据寄至证券代办处，基金部武汉交易中心回购债券款一经划出，证券代办处应将代保管收据寄至基金部武汉交易中心；基金部武汉交易中心回购债券按约定汇入代办处帐户，逾期汇入，按逾期金额日万分之五计罚息，逾期超过十天，视为自动放弃权利，证券代办处有权卖掉代保管债券，基金部武汉交易中心不得异议。此外，双方对上述协议中的1000万元债券又签订了《债券买卖附加协议》，约定手续费16万元。该三份合同签定后，证券代办处分别将500万元、300万元、500万元的购券款电汇至基金部武汉交易中心指定的帐户，基金部武汉交易中心收到款项后，没有按约定开出证券代保管收据。合同期限届满后，基金部武汉交易中心未按约定将所购证券予以回购。经证券代办处多次催收，基金部武汉交易中心于1996年7月31日归还20万元，深圳市天一实业股份有限公司于1997年1月4日至8月28日替基金部武汉交易中心归还了320万元，1997年11月10日、11日基金部武汉交易中心又归还了40万元，其余款项未归还。1997年11月19日双方订立了一份《还款计划》。@#
另查明：深圳国际信托投资总公司国际证券投资基金部系武汉证券交易中心的会员单位。上述三份《有价证券回购交易成交合同》未在证券交易中心进行，属场外交易；且没有足额的实物券托管或交割。基金部武汉交易中心和证券代办处不具有从事证券交易的主体资格。@#
诉讼中，中国农业银行昆明市分行变更为中国农业银行云南省分行营业部；深圳国际信托投资总公司变更为深圳国际信托投资公司；深圳国际信托投资总公司国际证券投资基金部变更为大鹏证券有限责任公司环宇证券营业部。@#
因基金部武汉交易中心未履行还款承诺，农行云南营业部遂诉至原审法院，请求判令深圳国投、大鹏环宇营业部偿还尚欠的购券款本金920万元，合同期间利息588900元、逾期按每日万分之五计罚息，计至债务付清为止。并承担本案的诉讼费及财产保全费用。@#
原审法院审理认为：一、深圳国投基金部是武汉证券交易中心的会员单位，其在武汉证券交易中心的预留印鉴户名为深圳国际信托投资总公司国际证券投资基金部，并启用了深圳国际证券投资基金部武汉交易中心的业务用章。深圳国投辩解深圳国投基金部的“授权书”，只对场内交易承担责任，对涉及场外的交易不应承担责任。但该授权书授权范围、期限不明确，应视为深圳国投基金部授予了代理权。由于深圳国投隶属的基金部已被大鹏环宇营业部予以收购，故应对其下属基金部在收购前所进行的民事行为的法律后果承担民事责任。@#
二、1996年11月10日深圳国投与大鹏证券有限责任公司签订一份《转让协议》，由大鹏证券有限责任公司受让深圳国际信托投资总公司国际证券投资基金部，1998年12月1日深圳国际信托投资总公司国际证券投资基金部变更为大鹏证券有限责任公司环宇证券营业部。大鹏环宇营业部认为根据双方《转让协议》约定：该深圳国投基金部正式交接之前发生的债权债务仍由深圳国投所有，大鹏证券有限责任公司不承担任何相关或连带责任；另外协议第五条约定受让价格为1000万元人民币。原审法院认为，双方所签《转让协议》具有收购性质，故根据双方约定及中国人民银行深圳经济特区分行深人银复(1996)404号批复，大鹏环宇营业部不应承担深圳国投基金部的债权债务。@#
综上，农行云南营业部原下属机构证券代办处与原深圳国投基金部武汉交易中心签订的三份《有价证券回购交易成交合同》，因未在证券交易中心进行，属场外交易，且没有足额的实物券托管或交割，违反了《信贷资金管理暂行办法》第五十二条的规定。依据《中华人民共和国民法通则》第五十八条、《中华人民共和国经济合同法》第七条的规定，本案双方签订的三份《有价证券回购交易成交合同》应确认为无效合同。双方以证券回购名义，行变相拆借资金之实，对此双方均有责任。双方的债权债务应根据国务院批转的中国人民银行《关于进一步做好证券回购债务清偿工作的请示》的通知(国发[1996]20号文件)精神处理，返还融资本金，按同业拆借利率赔偿拆借期间的利息损失，并承担逾期罚息。由于深圳国投基金部被收购，深圳国投应对其分支机构所产生的法律后果依法承担赔偿责任。本案截止到1999年7月28日深圳国投尚欠农行云南营业部本金为920万元，利息58．89万元(合同期内利率按同业拆借利率上限付息，即年息13．59％)，对农行云南营业部此项请求予以支持。造成合同无效双方均有责任，故诉讼费、保全费由农行云南营业部和深圳国投按过错原则分担。农行云南营业部对大鹏环宇营业部的诉讼请求，不予支持。据此，该院依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第四十三条、第五十八条、第一百零八条，《中华人民共和国经济合同法》第七条之规定，判决：一、证券代办处与基金部武汉交易中心签订的三份《有价证券回购交易成交合同》无效；二、深圳国投于判决生效后三十日内返还农行云南营业部本金人民币920万元，利息588900元(按年息13．59％计算)，并承担逾期罚息，按日万分之四计算(从1995年10月30日计算至还清款项止)；三、驳回农行云南营业部对大鹏环宇营业部的诉讼请求；四、农行云南营业部其它诉讼请求不予支持。诉讼费85318．45元，诉讼保全费5万元，深圳国投承担108254．76元，农行云南营业部承担27063．69元。@#
．．．．．．