关于外国企业所得税法公布施行前已批准的技术引进、借贷款、租赁等合同有关税收问题的通知
作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-07-02 10:34:21 浏览:9496
来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载
关于外国企业所得税法公布施行前已批准的技术引进、借贷款、租赁等合同有关税收问题的通知
关于外国企业所得税法公布施行前已批准的技术引进、借贷款、租赁等合同有关税收问题的通知
财政部
最近，有关部门和一些省市反映，在外国企业所得税法公布施行以前，有些企业、单位同外国公司、企业和其它经济组织签订的受让各项专利权、专有技术、版权的合同以及借贷款合同、租用财产的合同，有的订有彼此承担国内税收的条款，有的没有订税收条款，应当如何征收所得税
问题，要求予以明确。经研究，特规定如下：
一、在外国企业所得税法公布施行以前，已在签订的合同中明确在中国境内发生的与履行合同有关的税费由中方负担，并已将签订的合同报经主管部门批准的，在合同有效期间（不包括延长合同期限），可以按照原协议对外商所取得的特许权使用费等项收入免征所得税；在合同中没有
明确税收条款的，应当按照外国企业所得税法第十一条的规定，由支付单位在每次支付的款额中扣缴20％的所得税。如果征税涉及变更合同，确有实际困难的，可以报经当地税务机关批准，给予适当照顾。
二、在外国企业所得税法公布施行以后签订的合同（包括税法施行前已草签尚未经批准的合同），应依照国家税收法令确定合同条款，不得再用包税办法，违反税法规定的有关合同条款，一律无效。
1982年3月29日
下载地址: 点击此处下载
沉 默 权 的 立 法 思 考
作者：刘?
沉默权（Right to Silence）是指在刑事诉讼中嫌疑人和被告人所享有的可以对司法人员的讯问保持沉默，而不自证其罪的权利（the Privilege against Self-incrimination）。根据美国学者的解释，沉默权的特定含义包括三项基本内容 ：1.被告人没有义务向追诉一方或法庭提供任何可能使自己陷入不利境地的陈述或其它证据,追诉一方不得采取任何非人道或有损被告人人格尊严的方法强迫其就某一案件事实作出供述或提供证据；2.被告人有权拒绝回答追诉官员的讯问，有权在讯问中始终保持沉默，司法警察、检察官、法官应及时告知被告人享有此项权利，并不得因犯罪嫌疑人、被告人行使这一权利而作出对其不利的推论；3.被告人有权就案件事实作出有利于或不利于自己的陈述，但这种陈述须出于真实的意愿，并在意识到其行为后果的情况下作出，法庭不得将被告人非出于自愿而迫于外部强制或压力所作出的陈述作为定案依据。
沉默权在西方具有悠远的传统，关于争夺沉默权的斗争最早可以追溯到12世纪早期。正如美国学者莱纳德·利维在《第五修正案的起源》一文中指出：“沉默权是在两种对立的刑事诉讼制度的斗争中产生的，一边是支持公民自由和权利的普通法，它逐渐发展形成公民不得被迫回答导致自我归罪问题的权利；另一边是罗马法传统以及适用审讯制度的英国教会法庭，它的执法者们强烈反对沉默权。”也有学者认为，罗马法与教会法混合形成的大陆法对于沉默权的形成起了重要作用。英国特权法庭和宗教法庭受到这种法律的影响，沉默权首次提出是在宗教法庭。教会法认为，人们只应向上帝承认他们的罪过，而不应该向其他任何人坦白罪行。故教会法有一条原则：没有人可以被迫自证其罪，因为没有人必须揭露自己的耻辱。普通法的支持者们正是通过迫使宗教法庭遵守教会法中关于反对自我归罪的原则，逐步确立了沉默权 。
当今世界上绝大多数国家和地区都在其宪法或刑事诉讼法中确立了沉默权规则，如美国宪法修正案第5条规定：“任何人不得被迫自证其罪。”此外，一些有关刑事司法的国际法律文件也对沉默权予以承认。如1994年9月10日世界刑法学协会第15届大会《关于刑事诉讼中的人权问题的决议》重申了犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有沉默权的立场。1996年12月16日，第21届联大通过的《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第14条规定：凡受刑事指控者“不被强迫作不利于他自己的证言或强迫承认犯罪。”另外，世界各国在赋予犯罪嫌疑人、被告人以沉默权的同时还规定了保障机制，这些保障机制具体包括以下内容 ：1.讯问前的告之义务，如美国的“米兰达规则” ；2.讯问中的保障程序，如被羁押的犯罪嫌疑人有权获得律师的有效帮助，律师有权自由地会见犯罪嫌疑人等；3.证据采纳的排除规则，各国都不同程度地实行非法证据的排除规则；4.无不利后果的裁判原则，即不得因犯罪嫌疑人、被告人保持沉默这一单独的事实而得出犯罪嫌疑人、被告人有罪的结论。
尽管世界上许多国家已经承认和确立了沉默权制度，但我国的刑事诉讼法却并未明确规定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有沉默权。虽然我国对刑事诉讼法进行了修正，确立了无罪推定的基本原则（《刑事诉讼法》第12条规定：“未经人民法院依法判决，对任何人不得确定有罪”）；形成了以当事人主义为主、职权主义为辅的诉讼模式；建立了法官居中裁判、控辩双方相衡对抗的控辩式庭审方式 。但是《刑事诉讼法》依然规定：“被告人对侦查人员的提问，应当如实回答。但是对与本案无关的问题，有拒绝回答的权利。”根据这一规定，被告人负有对侦查人员的讯问如实陈述的义务，而没有保持沉默、拒绝陈述或作虚假陈述的权利。而自从我国于1998年签署了《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》以来，我国学术界对是否应当在立法上明确规定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有保持沉默的权利这一问题上存在着较大的分歧，大致可以归纳为三种观点：
一、引进说。认为将沉默权引进我国的条件已经具备，建议尽快通过立法程序，确立沉默权制度。
二、否定说。认为沉默权制度具有两重性，它为犯罪嫌疑人、被告人提供了对抗警察侦讯的避风港。在当前刑事犯罪猛增、治安形势严峻的情况下，不宜规定沉默权，对其采取排斥的态度。
三、折衷说。它是引进说和否定说的综合，认为应当赋予犯罪嫌疑人、被告人沉默权，但同时应对沉默权进行适当的限制。
对于上面的三种观点，本人较赞同第三种观点，即折衷说。虽然在立法上确立犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有沉默权有助于抑制并消除警察暴力，加强犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的防御力量，加强控方的举证责任，可以遏制我国刑事司法实践中大量存在的刑讯逼供现象，但是这并不意味着犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有的沉默权是绝对的、没有任何限制的。因为即便是在实行对抗制诉讼模式的西方国家，沉默权也是相对的，就沉默权而言有利亦有弊，即使在英、美等国家对沉默权也是有争议的。20世纪70年代初，英国就开始了对限制沉默权问题的讨论。1971年，刑事法修改委员会提出一项报告建议 ：“如果被告在警察审讯时不回答警察的提问，而所提的问题又是被告在法庭辩护时所依据的事实，对当初被告的沉默，法庭可以作出对被告不利的推断；如果被告在审判过程中拒绝作证，也应当对此作出对被告不利的推断。”1994年英国颁布《刑事审判与公共秩序法》时对沉默权的规定作了较大修改，新修改的内容实质在于在一些法定情况下，被告人的沉默可以被用作对他不利的证据，这集中体现在《刑事审判与公共秩序法》第34、35、36、37条的规定之中。这些对沉默权的限制有如下内容 ：1.被告人在受到讯问或指控时，如果被告人没有提供的事实是他赖以进行辩护的任何事实，而期望这种事实由他提供是合理的，或者被告人没有提供事实的场合包括他被起诉之前的讯问阶段，这种讯问则需要警察事先向他作出警告，以及在被提起公诉或者被正式告知他可能受到起诉以后；那么，法庭或陪审团可以在法定的场合下作出看起来适当的推论（这里实际是指对被告不利的推论）；2.如果被告人已年满14岁，他被指控的犯罪有待证明，并且法庭认为他的身体和精神条件适于提出证据，而被告人在法庭审判过程中保持沉默，则法庭或陪审团在决定被告人是否犯有被指控的罪行的时候，可以从该被告人在审判时没有提供证据或者无正当理由拒绝回答问题中作出看起来适当的推论；3.警察在被逮捕的人的身边、衣物、住处或被捕地发现了任何物品、材料或痕迹，并且确信这些物品、材料或痕迹系被捕者在实施被指控的犯罪过程中所形成，并要求被捕者对此进行解释，而该被捕者没有或拒绝这样做，在这种情况下，法庭或陪审团可以从中作出看起来适当的推论；4.如果警察发现被他逮捕的人在被指控的犯罪发生前后的时间出现在某一地方，并合理地相信该被捕者在那一时间出现于那一地方可归因于他参与实施了该罪行，而且警察要求被捕者对此作出解释，而该被捕者没有或拒绝这样做，在这种情况下，法庭或陪审团可以从中作出看起来适当的推论。另外，在美国，1984年由最高法院对“米兰达规则”也提出了有关公共安全的例外的规定。
由此可见，虽然借鉴国外的成功经验是加速我国法制建设中必不可少的一环，但是我国在建立沉默权制度的时候，“切不可造成一种假象，似乎在西方国家的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有足以无限对抗司法机关的沉默权，不能把国外已经修正了的旧‘轨道’作为我们‘接轨’的标准” ，而应该考虑到刑事诉讼法打击犯罪和保障人权这两项基本任务，考虑到国家、被害人、被告人三者的利益平衡，考虑到法的公平、效率、秩序等价值的综合实现。正如北京大学陈瑞华教授所说，沉默权实际上使被告人和司法机关处于公开对抗的位置，仅仅确认一些法治理念是不够的，如果没有这些程序性的制度有效保证的话，反而会使被告人面临更大的危险。我国有些学者对于在立法、司法上设置和完善沉默权制度提出了以下设想 ：
1.在案件侦查阶段。这一阶段应做到：第一，设置沉默权告知程序，即在侦查机关讯问犯罪嫌疑人前，书面或口头告知他们享有保持沉默的权利；第二，在讯问内容上，对侦查人员提出的关于是否有犯罪行为、陈述有罪的情节是否构成犯罪等问题，犯罪嫌疑人有权保持沉默。第三，认为侦查人员有逼供、诱供、骗供等行为的或希望得到律师帮助的，在得到帮助前有权保持沉默。第四，严格限制讯问时间，禁止夜间讯问，讯问时不得随便变换地点，对讯问手段进行监督和控制。第五，犯罪嫌疑人对本案外的人的犯罪行为有沉默权。
2.在审查起诉阶段。犯罪嫌疑人有向检察机关陈述辩解的权利，检察机关有义务听取犯罪嫌疑人的陈述和辩解，一旦犯罪嫌疑人明确表示沉默，检察机关应立即终止讯问。
3.在法庭审理阶段。在这一阶段应做到：在检察机关宣读起诉书后，由审判长告知被告人享有沉默权，也要同时一并告知被告人有替自己辩解的权利。
在设置沉默权制度的同时，亦应该设置其例外，我国沉默权的例外应包括以下内容 ：
1.在侦查阶段。第一犯罪嫌疑人陈述有关犯罪发生时间不在现场的证明人；损害结果之发生是因意外，正当防卫或紧急避险及证据等内容时，不应享有沉默权。第二，犯罪人正在实施犯罪，或其身上找到相关证据，此时，犯罪嫌疑人不享有沉默权。
2.在审判阶段。第一，对法官提出的程序性问题，如表明其身份的年龄、单位、住址等问题，以及是否行使法定权利的问题，如是否申请回避等，不应享有沉默权。第二，如果检察机关认为，被告人必须对某一问题的回答关系到案件重大事实的澄清时，此时，被告人仍坚持沉默，法庭可以根据案情认定控方指控成立。
另外一些学者则认为我国不应该建立沉默权制度，理由如下 ：
1.沉默权不适合我国的诉讼模式。沉默权产生于英国、流行于美国不是偶然的，在对抗制诉讼中，诉讼被视为政府与个人的争讼，为了限制政府的权力并发现案件的客观真实，该诉讼模式注重攻击与防御的作用与反作用。而我国刑事诉讼的模式是兼顾法官纠问式与对抗式，其与对抗式诉讼模式有着明显的基础性差异，不科学的引进，只能对基础功能造成破坏。
2.沉默权的科学性尚需研究。如英国1994年颁布的《刑事审判和公共秩序法》，改变了嫌疑人享有沉默权的传统做法，代之以要求嫌疑人回答讯问，否则允许法官和陪审团作出不利于犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的推断。因而我国对设立沉默权应持慎重态度。
3.我国刑事诉讼法不能过分强调犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的个人权利而付出太多的社会代价。要求犯罪嫌疑人、被告人有如实陈述的义务，有以下积极意义：（1）可以使有罪、无罪的证据公平地得以被发现，是刑事诉讼得以顺利进行的有效保证；（2）是否如实陈述，反映了被追诉刑事犯罪人的人身危险性和悔改程度，因而成为定罪量刑时的酌定情节之一，可以体现出我国刑罚的评价和引导功能。
综上所述，关于我国是否应当在立法上明确规定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有沉默权，以及应当建立什么形式的沉默权制度在我国学术界还存在着较大的分歧。从上述英国对于沉默权的限制中我们可以看到，沉默权是一柄双刃剑，它既可以保护无辜，又可以被真正的罪犯利用来逃避司法制裁。而目前我国的刑事侦查资源不足，特别是人员的缺乏，科技含量、物质条件以及人员素质等方面的严重不足，在实践中不可避免地在一定程度上依赖口供破案。另外，由于我国的证据制度不是实行自由心证和内心确信，而是强调证据间的相互印证，缺乏口供的案件，定案将比较困难，如果因沉默权制度设置不当而导致口供大量的减少，对于犯罪控制将十分不利。此外，因为沉默权制度是一个通过其他制度配合才能发挥效用的制度，它涉及到国家的政治制度、经济发展水平、历史文化传统、伦理价值观念和社会治安状况等方方面面，而我国是一个广阔的国家，各地经济发展极不平衡，法律民主观念也随地域而有差别，警察、检察机关等司法人员素质不尽相同，因此我国要在立法上确立沉默权制度还任重而道远。
基于这些原因，我认为：虽然我国建立有限制的沉默权制度是刑事诉讼法发展的必然，但由于目前国内的刑事侦查手段和技术的不足，以及我国证据制度的不完善，我国在现阶段还不适宜在立法上明确规定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有沉默权。
主要参考资料：
1. 《证据法学》 刘金友主编 中国政法大学出版社2001年版
2. 《论沉默权在中国确立》 作者不详 新浪网
3. 《对我国确立沉默权制度的思考》 作者不详 北大法律信息网
4. 《英国对沉默权制度的改革以及给我们的启示》 龙宗智 《法学》2000年2月
5. 《沉默权的行使及限制》 陆文洪 法律之星网站
6. 《应逐步确立沉默权规则》梁欣 法制日报1999年9月9日第七版
7. 《再谈沉默权》 宋英辉 北京青年报
8. 《简论沉默权对完善我国刑事诉讼制度的意义》 曾耀林 《人民司法》1999年6月
Partnership - New option for foreign investment in China
Zhiguo Li
A new door to partnership is opened by the Chinese government to the foreign investors under this post-financial turmoil era in order to attract more foreign investment and provide more employment. On November 25, 2009, the State Council of the PRC promulgated the Measures for the Administration on the Establishment of Partnership Business by Foreign Enterprises or Individuals in China adopted at the 77th executive meeting of the State Council on August 19, 2009, which shall come into effect as of March 1, 2010 (“the Foreign Partnership Measures”). The Foreign Partnership Measures is regarded as supplementary to the Partnership Business Law of the People's Republic of China (“the Partnership Law”), article 108 of which provides that the measures for the administration on the establishment of partnership business by foreign enterprises or individuals shall be formulated by the State Council. Therefore the Partnership Law is the basic law for foreign enterprises or individuals (collectively “foreign partners”) to establish the partnership business in China (“foreign partnership”).
The initial effort to formulate this kind of measures with the authorization of the Partnership Law can be tracked to January 2007 when the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (MOC), as requested by the Legislative Affair Office of the State Council, promulgated a draft of the Measures for the Administration on the Foreign Funded Partnership Business (“the Draft”) for public consultation. The Draft mostly reflect the intention of the MOC to remain the approval authority for the foreign partnerships as it does in the setup of the other three types of FIEs, such as equity joint venture, contractual joint venture and wholly foreign owned enterprise (i.e., EJV, CJV and WFOE, collectively FIEs). But the final Foreign Partnership Measures kick the MOC and its local branches (“the MOC local branches”) out from the charging authority with the replacement by the local authorized branch of the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC local branch), which is unexpected to but welcome by the professionals and entrepreneurs. This article will do analysis on the Foreign Partnership Measures from four perspectives: foreign partnership models, foreign partners’ qualification, thresholds and registration of the foreign partnership, in aiming to describe a clear foreign partnership roadmap for foreign partners.
Foreign Partnership Models
Foreign partners can set up the foreign partnership in China in three models: a. with the other foreign partners; b. with the Chinese individuals, legal persons and the other organizations registered and located in Mainland China; c. through participating the existing domestic partnership.
In the models above, the foreign partners have the option to take the form of general partnership, limited liability partnership or limited partnership stipulated by the Partnership Law, among which the limited liability partnership is only for the professional institutions such as law firms and accounting firms. Comparing with model a and b, model c seems more feasible and time-and-cost saving for the foreign partners. A complete due diligence will be conducted in order to minimize the risk from the operation of the domestic partnership before the participation date of the foreign partners. In consideration of the current administration and nature of the partnerships, lack of credibility and the other elements in China, it will be difficult to get a complete due diligence report satisfied with the foreign partners. Therefore, models a and b are highly recommended. Which model of a or b take needs the consideration and balance of the foreign partners based on their business plan, legal structuring, such as whether foreign partners themselves intend to do the business competing with the foreign partnership and how to exit by transferring the contribution in the partnership, ect., and the thresholds discussed below.
Foreign Partners’ Qualification
The difference in the expression on the partners from overseas and China should be noted. Foreign partners only include foreign enterprises and individuals. The Chinese partners include Chinese individuals, legal persons and the other organizations. There is no unified legal interpretation on the “enterprise”, though mostly it refers to the profitable organizations. This uncertainty may come from the prudency of the legislator of China on the qualifications of foreign partners. Under article 184 of the Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China for Trial (“the Opinions”), this expression of “enterprise” on the foreign partners allow the SAIC local branch more discretion to judge whether the foreign partner is a qualified “enterprise” or not in accordance with the relevant Chinese laws. In this scenario, the foreign partners need to note that they should not fall into the types of entities prescribed in article 3 of the Partnership Law if they aim to be a general partner, which says that wholly state-funded company, state-owned company, listed company, public-welfare-oriented institution or social organization may not become a general partner.
Regarding the foreign individuals, they must have full capacity for civil conduct in accordance with article 14 of the Partnership Law. The international private law problem will also be involved here. Pursuant to article 180 of the Opinions, the foreign individuals who conduct civil activities in the territory of China, shall be regarded as having full capacity for civil conduct if they have that in accordance with China laws, no matter what their national laws requires for their capacity for civil conduct. Foreign individuals at or above the age of 18 years old are qualified to be the foreign partners if they are not mentally ill.
Thresholds for Foreign Partnership
Some thresholds, such as the approval by the MOC, imposed on the FIEs are lifted for foreign partnership. This means that the foreign partnership and the domestic partnership will be treated with unified threshold in the aspect of approval, which will definitely reduce the criticism from the international community, but may cause more from the domestic public (including those FIEs). But it does not mean that there will be no thresholds review on foreign partnership.
Article 3 of the Foreign Partnership Measures lists the general thresholds for the foreign partnerships. The establishment of foreign partnership shall abide by the Partnership Law and the other relevant laws, regulations and rules, and comply with the industrial policies for foreign investment. These general thresholds need to be analyzed together with the reference to the other relevant laws, regulations, rules and policies.
First, the threshold provided by the Partnership Law is the pre-approval on the business scope. Where the business cope of a foreign partnership contains any item, for example oil distribution, that is subject to approval prior to registration according to laws or regulations, such approval shall be sought in advance and submitted at the time of registration with SAIC local branch. These pre-approvals involve , but not limited to, the Ministry of Land, the Ministry of Transport, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the China Banking Regulatory Commission and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission, etc., which depends on the business of the foreign partnership.
Second, the Provisions on Guiding the Orientation of Foreign Investment (2002) and the Catalogue for the Guidance of Foreign Investment Industries (revised in 2007) (collectively “foreign investment industrial policies”) set up the industrial threshold for the foreign partnerships, which are the industrial policy basis for the SAIC local branch to review registration application to establish foreign partnership in China. This will obviously increase the working load of the SAIC local branches since they are lack of the experience in this kind of foreign investment industrial policies review. We may also anticipate that there might be different explanation and implementations on the above two documents, which will be the problem faced by those foreign partners who submit the application in the first half year after the Foreign Partnership Measures comes into force on March 1, 2010.
The third threshold is that the verification is required if the project invested by the foreign partners falls into the scope described in the Provisional Measures Governing Verification of Foreign Invested Projects. The charging authority is the National Development and Reform Commission and its local branches, which depending on the amount of the total investment and the nature of the project.
It is necessary to note the forth threshold hidden in the important expression in article 3 of the Foreign Partnership Measures, which put the “rules” as the legal basis for the establishment of foreign partnerships. In the legal system of China, it indicates that the State Council authorizes the ministries or departments under the State Council (“the Ministries”) to issue necessary “rules” applicable to foreign partnerships. It also reflects that the existing valid “rules” issued by the Ministries, including those applicable to the representative offices opened by foreign law firms in China, are still the barrier for the foreign partners to access the local market in China.
The final threshold comes from the commitment of China in its WTO accession. Although the State Council encourages those foreign partners who have advanced technology and management experience to establish foreign partnership in China with the purpose to facilitate the development of the modern service industry, at this stage, the services industries may only limited to those listed in the Schedule of Specific Commitments on Services (Annex 9 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People’s Republic of China) and the openness will not be wider than the commitments therein.
Registration of the Foreign Partnership
In the FIEs regime, all investments by foreign investors need the pre-approvals of the MOC or MOC local branches. In the approval process, the MOC or MOC local branches will review, but not limited to, the content of the application, the article of associations of FIEs and contracts signed by the parties if any. Generally, this approval procedure will take 5 working days to 90 working days depending on the nature and total investment of the project. In this regard, the cancel of this approval for the foreign partnership will significantly escalate the speed of the establishment in the procedural stage and to a great extent reduce the uncertainty from the MOC or MOC local branches.
The Foreign Partnership Measures stipulates that the representative or agent of all the partners shall submit the establishment application only to the SAIC local branch and not the SAIC. The submission shall include, besides the documents required by the Regulations on the Administration of Registration of Partnership Business (revised in 2007, “Partnership Registration Regulation”), the explanation on compliance of the foreign partnership with the foreign investment industrial policies, which will ease the review by the SAIC local branch. In this regard, the review may not be limited to the formality as provided in article 16 of Partnership Registration Regulation. It seems impossible for the SAIC local branch to issue the license to the foreign partnership on the spot. In this scenario, the SAIC local branch shall make a decision on whether to issue the license to the foreign partnership within 20 working days after the date it accepts the complete application.
The Foreign Partnership Measures is the second case for MOC and MOC local branches to lose approval authority in the recent years. The first case is for the representative office opened by most of foreign enterprises in China since 2004. Although the loss of approval authority, the MOC local branches at the same level with the SAIC local branches accepting the application for establishment of foreign partnership shall be advised the registration information (including the establishment, alteration and cancel) of the foreign partnerships by the latter.
Conclusion
For those foreign partners not interested in establishing professional foreign partnerships such as law firms in China, they are now can access the Chinese market with a presence in the option of partnership. The approval procedures involved with the MOC or its local branches as set up for FIEs has been removed. The minimum investment (registered capital) requirement for FIEs has been reduced to RMB30,000 (RMB100,000 for one-person limited liability company) by the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (revised in 2005), the Foreign Partnership Measures leave the minimum investment open to the partners. The foreign partners can contribute with the currency (freely exchanged foreign currency or legally earned RMB), in kind, IPR, land use right, the other properties or labor service (limited to general partners) to the foreign partnerships. All these will minimize the cost for foreign partners to achieve their goal of profit maximization in China. But those enterprises focusing on the investment business, such as the foreign-funded venture capital investment enterprises and foreign-funded investment companies, are excluded from the Foreign Partnership Measures due to lack of experience in administrating this kind of enterprises by the government.
作者：刘?
沉默权（Right to Silence）是指在刑事诉讼中嫌疑人和被告人所享有的可以对司法人员的讯问保持沉默，而不自证其罪的权利（the Privilege against Self-incrimination）。根据美国学者的解释，沉默权的特定含义包括三项基本内容 ：1.被告人没有义务向追诉一方或法庭提供任何可能使自己陷入不利境地的陈述或其它证据,追诉一方不得采取任何非人道或有损被告人人格尊严的方法强迫其就某一案件事实作出供述或提供证据；2.被告人有权拒绝回答追诉官员的讯问，有权在讯问中始终保持沉默，司法警察、检察官、法官应及时告知被告人享有此项权利，并不得因犯罪嫌疑人、被告人行使这一权利而作出对其不利的推论；3.被告人有权就案件事实作出有利于或不利于自己的陈述，但这种陈述须出于真实的意愿，并在意识到其行为后果的情况下作出，法庭不得将被告人非出于自愿而迫于外部强制或压力所作出的陈述作为定案依据。
沉默权在西方具有悠远的传统，关于争夺沉默权的斗争最早可以追溯到12世纪早期。正如美国学者莱纳德·利维在《第五修正案的起源》一文中指出：“沉默权是在两种对立的刑事诉讼制度的斗争中产生的，一边是支持公民自由和权利的普通法，它逐渐发展形成公民不得被迫回答导致自我归罪问题的权利；另一边是罗马法传统以及适用审讯制度的英国教会法庭，它的执法者们强烈反对沉默权。”也有学者认为，罗马法与教会法混合形成的大陆法对于沉默权的形成起了重要作用。英国特权法庭和宗教法庭受到这种法律的影响，沉默权首次提出是在宗教法庭。教会法认为，人们只应向上帝承认他们的罪过，而不应该向其他任何人坦白罪行。故教会法有一条原则：没有人可以被迫自证其罪，因为没有人必须揭露自己的耻辱。普通法的支持者们正是通过迫使宗教法庭遵守教会法中关于反对自我归罪的原则，逐步确立了沉默权 。
当今世界上绝大多数国家和地区都在其宪法或刑事诉讼法中确立了沉默权规则，如美国宪法修正案第5条规定：“任何人不得被迫自证其罪。”此外，一些有关刑事司法的国际法律文件也对沉默权予以承认。如1994年9月10日世界刑法学协会第15届大会《关于刑事诉讼中的人权问题的决议》重申了犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有沉默权的立场。1996年12月16日，第21届联大通过的《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第14条规定：凡受刑事指控者“不被强迫作不利于他自己的证言或强迫承认犯罪。”另外，世界各国在赋予犯罪嫌疑人、被告人以沉默权的同时还规定了保障机制，这些保障机制具体包括以下内容 ：1.讯问前的告之义务，如美国的“米兰达规则” ；2.讯问中的保障程序，如被羁押的犯罪嫌疑人有权获得律师的有效帮助，律师有权自由地会见犯罪嫌疑人等；3.证据采纳的排除规则，各国都不同程度地实行非法证据的排除规则；4.无不利后果的裁判原则，即不得因犯罪嫌疑人、被告人保持沉默这一单独的事实而得出犯罪嫌疑人、被告人有罪的结论。
尽管世界上许多国家已经承认和确立了沉默权制度，但我国的刑事诉讼法却并未明确规定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有沉默权。虽然我国对刑事诉讼法进行了修正，确立了无罪推定的基本原则（《刑事诉讼法》第12条规定：“未经人民法院依法判决，对任何人不得确定有罪”）；形成了以当事人主义为主、职权主义为辅的诉讼模式；建立了法官居中裁判、控辩双方相衡对抗的控辩式庭审方式 。但是《刑事诉讼法》依然规定：“被告人对侦查人员的提问，应当如实回答。但是对与本案无关的问题，有拒绝回答的权利。”根据这一规定，被告人负有对侦查人员的讯问如实陈述的义务，而没有保持沉默、拒绝陈述或作虚假陈述的权利。而自从我国于1998年签署了《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》以来，我国学术界对是否应当在立法上明确规定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有保持沉默的权利这一问题上存在着较大的分歧，大致可以归纳为三种观点：
一、引进说。认为将沉默权引进我国的条件已经具备，建议尽快通过立法程序，确立沉默权制度。
二、否定说。认为沉默权制度具有两重性，它为犯罪嫌疑人、被告人提供了对抗警察侦讯的避风港。在当前刑事犯罪猛增、治安形势严峻的情况下，不宜规定沉默权，对其采取排斥的态度。
三、折衷说。它是引进说和否定说的综合，认为应当赋予犯罪嫌疑人、被告人沉默权，但同时应对沉默权进行适当的限制。
对于上面的三种观点，本人较赞同第三种观点，即折衷说。虽然在立法上确立犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有沉默权有助于抑制并消除警察暴力，加强犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的防御力量，加强控方的举证责任，可以遏制我国刑事司法实践中大量存在的刑讯逼供现象，但是这并不意味着犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有的沉默权是绝对的、没有任何限制的。因为即便是在实行对抗制诉讼模式的西方国家，沉默权也是相对的，就沉默权而言有利亦有弊，即使在英、美等国家对沉默权也是有争议的。20世纪70年代初，英国就开始了对限制沉默权问题的讨论。1971年，刑事法修改委员会提出一项报告建议 ：“如果被告在警察审讯时不回答警察的提问，而所提的问题又是被告在法庭辩护时所依据的事实，对当初被告的沉默，法庭可以作出对被告不利的推断；如果被告在审判过程中拒绝作证，也应当对此作出对被告不利的推断。”1994年英国颁布《刑事审判与公共秩序法》时对沉默权的规定作了较大修改，新修改的内容实质在于在一些法定情况下，被告人的沉默可以被用作对他不利的证据，这集中体现在《刑事审判与公共秩序法》第34、35、36、37条的规定之中。这些对沉默权的限制有如下内容 ：1.被告人在受到讯问或指控时，如果被告人没有提供的事实是他赖以进行辩护的任何事实，而期望这种事实由他提供是合理的，或者被告人没有提供事实的场合包括他被起诉之前的讯问阶段，这种讯问则需要警察事先向他作出警告，以及在被提起公诉或者被正式告知他可能受到起诉以后；那么，法庭或陪审团可以在法定的场合下作出看起来适当的推论（这里实际是指对被告不利的推论）；2.如果被告人已年满14岁，他被指控的犯罪有待证明，并且法庭认为他的身体和精神条件适于提出证据，而被告人在法庭审判过程中保持沉默，则法庭或陪审团在决定被告人是否犯有被指控的罪行的时候，可以从该被告人在审判时没有提供证据或者无正当理由拒绝回答问题中作出看起来适当的推论；3.警察在被逮捕的人的身边、衣物、住处或被捕地发现了任何物品、材料或痕迹，并且确信这些物品、材料或痕迹系被捕者在实施被指控的犯罪过程中所形成，并要求被捕者对此进行解释，而该被捕者没有或拒绝这样做，在这种情况下，法庭或陪审团可以从中作出看起来适当的推论；4.如果警察发现被他逮捕的人在被指控的犯罪发生前后的时间出现在某一地方，并合理地相信该被捕者在那一时间出现于那一地方可归因于他参与实施了该罪行，而且警察要求被捕者对此作出解释，而该被捕者没有或拒绝这样做，在这种情况下，法庭或陪审团可以从中作出看起来适当的推论。另外，在美国，1984年由最高法院对“米兰达规则”也提出了有关公共安全的例外的规定。
由此可见，虽然借鉴国外的成功经验是加速我国法制建设中必不可少的一环，但是我国在建立沉默权制度的时候，“切不可造成一种假象，似乎在西方国家的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有足以无限对抗司法机关的沉默权，不能把国外已经修正了的旧‘轨道’作为我们‘接轨’的标准” ，而应该考虑到刑事诉讼法打击犯罪和保障人权这两项基本任务，考虑到国家、被害人、被告人三者的利益平衡，考虑到法的公平、效率、秩序等价值的综合实现。正如北京大学陈瑞华教授所说，沉默权实际上使被告人和司法机关处于公开对抗的位置，仅仅确认一些法治理念是不够的，如果没有这些程序性的制度有效保证的话，反而会使被告人面临更大的危险。我国有些学者对于在立法、司法上设置和完善沉默权制度提出了以下设想 ：
1.在案件侦查阶段。这一阶段应做到：第一，设置沉默权告知程序，即在侦查机关讯问犯罪嫌疑人前，书面或口头告知他们享有保持沉默的权利；第二，在讯问内容上，对侦查人员提出的关于是否有犯罪行为、陈述有罪的情节是否构成犯罪等问题，犯罪嫌疑人有权保持沉默。第三，认为侦查人员有逼供、诱供、骗供等行为的或希望得到律师帮助的，在得到帮助前有权保持沉默。第四，严格限制讯问时间，禁止夜间讯问，讯问时不得随便变换地点，对讯问手段进行监督和控制。第五，犯罪嫌疑人对本案外的人的犯罪行为有沉默权。
2.在审查起诉阶段。犯罪嫌疑人有向检察机关陈述辩解的权利，检察机关有义务听取犯罪嫌疑人的陈述和辩解，一旦犯罪嫌疑人明确表示沉默，检察机关应立即终止讯问。
3.在法庭审理阶段。在这一阶段应做到：在检察机关宣读起诉书后，由审判长告知被告人享有沉默权，也要同时一并告知被告人有替自己辩解的权利。
在设置沉默权制度的同时，亦应该设置其例外，我国沉默权的例外应包括以下内容 ：
1.在侦查阶段。第一犯罪嫌疑人陈述有关犯罪发生时间不在现场的证明人；损害结果之发生是因意外，正当防卫或紧急避险及证据等内容时，不应享有沉默权。第二，犯罪人正在实施犯罪，或其身上找到相关证据，此时，犯罪嫌疑人不享有沉默权。
2.在审判阶段。第一，对法官提出的程序性问题，如表明其身份的年龄、单位、住址等问题，以及是否行使法定权利的问题，如是否申请回避等，不应享有沉默权。第二，如果检察机关认为，被告人必须对某一问题的回答关系到案件重大事实的澄清时，此时，被告人仍坚持沉默，法庭可以根据案情认定控方指控成立。
另外一些学者则认为我国不应该建立沉默权制度，理由如下 ：
1.沉默权不适合我国的诉讼模式。沉默权产生于英国、流行于美国不是偶然的，在对抗制诉讼中，诉讼被视为政府与个人的争讼，为了限制政府的权力并发现案件的客观真实，该诉讼模式注重攻击与防御的作用与反作用。而我国刑事诉讼的模式是兼顾法官纠问式与对抗式，其与对抗式诉讼模式有着明显的基础性差异，不科学的引进，只能对基础功能造成破坏。
2.沉默权的科学性尚需研究。如英国1994年颁布的《刑事审判和公共秩序法》，改变了嫌疑人享有沉默权的传统做法，代之以要求嫌疑人回答讯问，否则允许法官和陪审团作出不利于犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的推断。因而我国对设立沉默权应持慎重态度。
3.我国刑事诉讼法不能过分强调犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的个人权利而付出太多的社会代价。要求犯罪嫌疑人、被告人有如实陈述的义务，有以下积极意义：（1）可以使有罪、无罪的证据公平地得以被发现，是刑事诉讼得以顺利进行的有效保证；（2）是否如实陈述，反映了被追诉刑事犯罪人的人身危险性和悔改程度，因而成为定罪量刑时的酌定情节之一，可以体现出我国刑罚的评价和引导功能。
综上所述，关于我国是否应当在立法上明确规定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有沉默权，以及应当建立什么形式的沉默权制度在我国学术界还存在着较大的分歧。从上述英国对于沉默权的限制中我们可以看到，沉默权是一柄双刃剑，它既可以保护无辜，又可以被真正的罪犯利用来逃避司法制裁。而目前我国的刑事侦查资源不足，特别是人员的缺乏，科技含量、物质条件以及人员素质等方面的严重不足，在实践中不可避免地在一定程度上依赖口供破案。另外，由于我国的证据制度不是实行自由心证和内心确信，而是强调证据间的相互印证，缺乏口供的案件，定案将比较困难，如果因沉默权制度设置不当而导致口供大量的减少，对于犯罪控制将十分不利。此外，因为沉默权制度是一个通过其他制度配合才能发挥效用的制度，它涉及到国家的政治制度、经济发展水平、历史文化传统、伦理价值观念和社会治安状况等方方面面，而我国是一个广阔的国家，各地经济发展极不平衡，法律民主观念也随地域而有差别，警察、检察机关等司法人员素质不尽相同，因此我国要在立法上确立沉默权制度还任重而道远。
基于这些原因，我认为：虽然我国建立有限制的沉默权制度是刑事诉讼法发展的必然，但由于目前国内的刑事侦查手段和技术的不足，以及我国证据制度的不完善，我国在现阶段还不适宜在立法上明确规定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有沉默权。
主要参考资料：
1. 《证据法学》 刘金友主编 中国政法大学出版社2001年版
2. 《论沉默权在中国确立》 作者不详 新浪网
3. 《对我国确立沉默权制度的思考》 作者不详 北大法律信息网
4. 《英国对沉默权制度的改革以及给我们的启示》 龙宗智 《法学》2000年2月
5. 《沉默权的行使及限制》 陆文洪 法律之星网站
6. 《应逐步确立沉默权规则》梁欣 法制日报1999年9月9日第七版
7. 《再谈沉默权》 宋英辉 北京青年报
8. 《简论沉默权对完善我国刑事诉讼制度的意义》 曾耀林 《人民司法》1999年6月
Partnership - New option for foreign investment in China
Zhiguo Li
A new door to partnership is opened by the Chinese government to the foreign investors under this post-financial turmoil era in order to attract more foreign investment and provide more employment. On November 25, 2009, the State Council of the PRC promulgated the Measures for the Administration on the Establishment of Partnership Business by Foreign Enterprises or Individuals in China adopted at the 77th executive meeting of the State Council on August 19, 2009, which shall come into effect as of March 1, 2010 (“the Foreign Partnership Measures”). The Foreign Partnership Measures is regarded as supplementary to the Partnership Business Law of the People's Republic of China (“the Partnership Law”), article 108 of which provides that the measures for the administration on the establishment of partnership business by foreign enterprises or individuals shall be formulated by the State Council. Therefore the Partnership Law is the basic law for foreign enterprises or individuals (collectively “foreign partners”) to establish the partnership business in China (“foreign partnership”).
The initial effort to formulate this kind of measures with the authorization of the Partnership Law can be tracked to January 2007 when the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (MOC), as requested by the Legislative Affair Office of the State Council, promulgated a draft of the Measures for the Administration on the Foreign Funded Partnership Business (“the Draft”) for public consultation. The Draft mostly reflect the intention of the MOC to remain the approval authority for the foreign partnerships as it does in the setup of the other three types of FIEs, such as equity joint venture, contractual joint venture and wholly foreign owned enterprise (i.e., EJV, CJV and WFOE, collectively FIEs). But the final Foreign Partnership Measures kick the MOC and its local branches (“the MOC local branches”) out from the charging authority with the replacement by the local authorized branch of the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC local branch), which is unexpected to but welcome by the professionals and entrepreneurs. This article will do analysis on the Foreign Partnership Measures from four perspectives: foreign partnership models, foreign partners’ qualification, thresholds and registration of the foreign partnership, in aiming to describe a clear foreign partnership roadmap for foreign partners.
Foreign Partnership Models
Foreign partners can set up the foreign partnership in China in three models: a. with the other foreign partners; b. with the Chinese individuals, legal persons and the other organizations registered and located in Mainland China; c. through participating the existing domestic partnership.
In the models above, the foreign partners have the option to take the form of general partnership, limited liability partnership or limited partnership stipulated by the Partnership Law, among which the limited liability partnership is only for the professional institutions such as law firms and accounting firms. Comparing with model a and b, model c seems more feasible and time-and-cost saving for the foreign partners. A complete due diligence will be conducted in order to minimize the risk from the operation of the domestic partnership before the participation date of the foreign partners. In consideration of the current administration and nature of the partnerships, lack of credibility and the other elements in China, it will be difficult to get a complete due diligence report satisfied with the foreign partners. Therefore, models a and b are highly recommended. Which model of a or b take needs the consideration and balance of the foreign partners based on their business plan, legal structuring, such as whether foreign partners themselves intend to do the business competing with the foreign partnership and how to exit by transferring the contribution in the partnership, ect., and the thresholds discussed below.
Foreign Partners’ Qualification
The difference in the expression on the partners from overseas and China should be noted. Foreign partners only include foreign enterprises and individuals. The Chinese partners include Chinese individuals, legal persons and the other organizations. There is no unified legal interpretation on the “enterprise”, though mostly it refers to the profitable organizations. This uncertainty may come from the prudency of the legislator of China on the qualifications of foreign partners. Under article 184 of the Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China for Trial (“the Opinions”), this expression of “enterprise” on the foreign partners allow the SAIC local branch more discretion to judge whether the foreign partner is a qualified “enterprise” or not in accordance with the relevant Chinese laws. In this scenario, the foreign partners need to note that they should not fall into the types of entities prescribed in article 3 of the Partnership Law if they aim to be a general partner, which says that wholly state-funded company, state-owned company, listed company, public-welfare-oriented institution or social organization may not become a general partner.
Regarding the foreign individuals, they must have full capacity for civil conduct in accordance with article 14 of the Partnership Law. The international private law problem will also be involved here. Pursuant to article 180 of the Opinions, the foreign individuals who conduct civil activities in the territory of China, shall be regarded as having full capacity for civil conduct if they have that in accordance with China laws, no matter what their national laws requires for their capacity for civil conduct. Foreign individuals at or above the age of 18 years old are qualified to be the foreign partners if they are not mentally ill.
Thresholds for Foreign Partnership
Some thresholds, such as the approval by the MOC, imposed on the FIEs are lifted for foreign partnership. This means that the foreign partnership and the domestic partnership will be treated with unified threshold in the aspect of approval, which will definitely reduce the criticism from the international community, but may cause more from the domestic public (including those FIEs). But it does not mean that there will be no thresholds review on foreign partnership.
Article 3 of the Foreign Partnership Measures lists the general thresholds for the foreign partnerships. The establishment of foreign partnership shall abide by the Partnership Law and the other relevant laws, regulations and rules, and comply with the industrial policies for foreign investment. These general thresholds need to be analyzed together with the reference to the other relevant laws, regulations, rules and policies.
First, the threshold provided by the Partnership Law is the pre-approval on the business scope. Where the business cope of a foreign partnership contains any item, for example oil distribution, that is subject to approval prior to registration according to laws or regulations, such approval shall be sought in advance and submitted at the time of registration with SAIC local branch. These pre-approvals involve , but not limited to, the Ministry of Land, the Ministry of Transport, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the China Banking Regulatory Commission and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission, etc., which depends on the business of the foreign partnership.
Second, the Provisions on Guiding the Orientation of Foreign Investment (2002) and the Catalogue for the Guidance of Foreign Investment Industries (revised in 2007) (collectively “foreign investment industrial policies”) set up the industrial threshold for the foreign partnerships, which are the industrial policy basis for the SAIC local branch to review registration application to establish foreign partnership in China. This will obviously increase the working load of the SAIC local branches since they are lack of the experience in this kind of foreign investment industrial policies review. We may also anticipate that there might be different explanation and implementations on the above two documents, which will be the problem faced by those foreign partners who submit the application in the first half year after the Foreign Partnership Measures comes into force on March 1, 2010.
The third threshold is that the verification is required if the project invested by the foreign partners falls into the scope described in the Provisional Measures Governing Verification of Foreign Invested Projects. The charging authority is the National Development and Reform Commission and its local branches, which depending on the amount of the total investment and the nature of the project.
It is necessary to note the forth threshold hidden in the important expression in article 3 of the Foreign Partnership Measures, which put the “rules” as the legal basis for the establishment of foreign partnerships. In the legal system of China, it indicates that the State Council authorizes the ministries or departments under the State Council (“the Ministries”) to issue necessary “rules” applicable to foreign partnerships. It also reflects that the existing valid “rules” issued by the Ministries, including those applicable to the representative offices opened by foreign law firms in China, are still the barrier for the foreign partners to access the local market in China.
The final threshold comes from the commitment of China in its WTO accession. Although the State Council encourages those foreign partners who have advanced technology and management experience to establish foreign partnership in China with the purpose to facilitate the development of the modern service industry, at this stage, the services industries may only limited to those listed in the Schedule of Specific Commitments on Services (Annex 9 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People’s Republic of China) and the openness will not be wider than the commitments therein.
Registration of the Foreign Partnership
In the FIEs regime, all investments by foreign investors need the pre-approvals of the MOC or MOC local branches. In the approval process, the MOC or MOC local branches will review, but not limited to, the content of the application, the article of associations of FIEs and contracts signed by the parties if any. Generally, this approval procedure will take 5 working days to 90 working days depending on the nature and total investment of the project. In this regard, the cancel of this approval for the foreign partnership will significantly escalate the speed of the establishment in the procedural stage and to a great extent reduce the uncertainty from the MOC or MOC local branches.
The Foreign Partnership Measures stipulates that the representative or agent of all the partners shall submit the establishment application only to the SAIC local branch and not the SAIC. The submission shall include, besides the documents required by the Regulations on the Administration of Registration of Partnership Business (revised in 2007, “Partnership Registration Regulation”), the explanation on compliance of the foreign partnership with the foreign investment industrial policies, which will ease the review by the SAIC local branch. In this regard, the review may not be limited to the formality as provided in article 16 of Partnership Registration Regulation. It seems impossible for the SAIC local branch to issue the license to the foreign partnership on the spot. In this scenario, the SAIC local branch shall make a decision on whether to issue the license to the foreign partnership within 20 working days after the date it accepts the complete application.
The Foreign Partnership Measures is the second case for MOC and MOC local branches to lose approval authority in the recent years. The first case is for the representative office opened by most of foreign enterprises in China since 2004. Although the loss of approval authority, the MOC local branches at the same level with the SAIC local branches accepting the application for establishment of foreign partnership shall be advised the registration information (including the establishment, alteration and cancel) of the foreign partnerships by the latter.
Conclusion
For those foreign partners not interested in establishing professional foreign partnerships such as law firms in China, they are now can access the Chinese market with a presence in the option of partnership. The approval procedures involved with the MOC or its local branches as set up for FIEs has been removed. The minimum investment (registered capital) requirement for FIEs has been reduced to RMB30,000 (RMB100,000 for one-person limited liability company) by the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (revised in 2005), the Foreign Partnership Measures leave the minimum investment open to the partners. The foreign partners can contribute with the currency (freely exchanged foreign currency or legally earned RMB), in kind, IPR, land use right, the other properties or labor service (limited to general partners) to the foreign partnerships. All these will minimize the cost for foreign partners to achieve their goal of profit maximization in China. But those enterprises focusing on the investment business, such as the foreign-funded venture capital investment enterprises and foreign-funded investment companies, are excluded from the Foreign Partnership Measures due to lack of experience in administrating this kind of enterprises by the government.
