期货类案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例

北大法律信息网 2021-09-21

目录
Contents

1.范有孚与银建期货经纪有限责任公司天津营业部期货交易合同纠纷再审案
Fan Youfu v. Tianjin Branch of Yinjian Futures Brokerage Co., Ltd.(Futures trading dispute)

2.周鑫良与金昌期货经纪有限公司期货交易纠纷案
Zhou Xinliang v. Jinchang Futures Brokerage Co., Ltd. (case of dispute over futures transactions)

3.哈尔滨工业大学工程开发实业公司与中国国际期货经纪有限公司工程款纠纷上诉案
Engineering Development Industrial Corporation, Harbin Institute of Technology v. China International Futures Co.,Ltd. (appeal case of dispute over the project funds)

一、范有孚与银建期货经纪有限责任公司天津营业部期货交易合同纠纷再审案

Fan Youfu v. Tianjin Branch of Yinjian Futures Brokerage Co., Ltd. (Futures trading dispute)

【裁判要旨】

根据《期货交易管理条例》第三十八条第二款的规定，期货公司采取强行平仓措施必须具备三个前提条件：一是客户保证金不足；二是客户没有按照要求及时追加保证金；三是客户没有及时自行平仓。期货公司违反上述规定和合同约定强行平仓，导致客户遭受损害的，应依法承担相应的责任。

[Judgment Abstract]

In accordance with paragraph 2, Article 38 of the Regulation on the Administration of Futures Trading, all of the following three conditions must be met for a futures brokerage company to conduct forced liquidation: (1) the client's margin isinsufficient; (2) the client fails to provide additional margin in a timely manner as required; and (3) the client fails to voluntarily conduct liquidation in a timely manner. A futures brokerage company which conducts forced liquidation in violation of the aforesaid Regulation and contractual provisions, causing damage to its clients, shall assume corresponding liabilities according to law.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》2011年第6期(总第176期)

Source Note:SPC Gazette, Issue 6, 2011

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.367770

[CLI Code] CLI.C.367770(EN)

二、周鑫良与金昌期货经纪有限公司期货交易纠纷案

Zhou Xinliang v. Jinchang Futures Brokerage Co., Ltd. (case of dispute over futures transactions)

【裁判要旨】

开平仓方向是指客户的期货合约要求建仓还是平仓，是一个结算概念，建仓则收取保证金，平仓则退还保证金。买卖方向是指客户对期货合约要求买进还是卖出。开平仓方向与买卖方向是两个完全不同的概念。最高人民法院《关于审理期货纠纷案件若干问题的规定》第五十六条规定，确认期货公司是否将客户下达的交易指令入市交易，应当以期货交易所的历史成交记录、期货公司通知的交易结算结果与客户交易指令记录的品种、买卖方向是否一致，价格、交易时间是否相符为标准，指令交易数量可以作为参考。因此，客户与期货公司因交易指令是否入市发生纠纷而起诉的，法院不能将开平仓方向作为判断期货公司是否入市交易的标准。

[Judgment Abstract]

The direction of opening and closing, as a settlement concept, is that a client's futures contract requires opening or closing a position. When a position is opened margins need to be charged, while when a position is closed margins need to be returned. The buying and selling direction refers to whether customers require to buy or sell futures contracts. Therefore, the direction of opening and closing and the buying and selling direction are two totally different concepts. In accordance with the provisions of Article 56 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Futures Dispute Cases, confirmation of whether a futures company has taken the instructions given by a client for transactions on the market shall be based on whether the transaction records of the futures exchange and the transaction settlement results notified by the futures company are consistent with the types and transaction direction recorded in the client's instructions. Other factors such as whether the prices and time of transaction are consistent, and the instructed transaction quantity may be taken for reference. Therefore, where a client sues a futures company for a dispute over the instructions by a client for transactions on the market, the court shall not take the direction of opening and closing as criteria for judging whether the futures company makes transactions on the market.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.332132

[CLI Code] CLI.C.332132(EN)

三、哈尔滨工业大学工程开发实业公司与中国国际期货经纪有限公司工程款纠纷上诉案

Engineering Development Industrial Corporation, Harbin Institute of Technology v. China International Futures Co.,Ltd. (appeal case of dispute over the project funds)

【裁判摘要】

最高人民法院《关于企业开办的其他企业被撤销或者歇业后的民事责任承担问题的批复》规定，企业开办的其他企业被撤销的，且企业实际投入的自有资金与注册资金不符并未达到相应要求的，被开办的企业不具备法人资格，应当由开办单位承担其开办的企业的债务。最高人民法院《关于对注册资金投入未达到法规规定最低限额的企业法人签订的经济合同效力如何确认问题的批复》规定，对于注册资金投入未达到法规规定最低限额的企业法人，应视其为不具备法人资格，其债务比照最高人民法院《关于企业开办的其他企业被撤销或者歇业后的民事责任承担问题的批复》进行处理。据此，企业开办的其他企业，在事实上不具备法人资格的，其责任由开办企业承担。所以，企业开办的企业，注册资金不到位、运作不规范而实际上不具备独立的法人资格的，应当由开办企业承担其权利、义务和责任。

[Judgment Abstract]

According to the provisions of the Official Reply of the Supreme People's Court regarding Issues concerning the Assumption of Civil Liabilities in the Case of Revocation or Closeout of one Enterprise Established by Another Enterprise, where an enterprise established by another one is revoked, and the actual capital invested by the enterprise does not meet the corresponding requirements of registered capital, the enterprise being established does not have a legal person qualification and its debts shall be assumed by the parent enterprise. Under the provisions of the Official Reply of the Supreme People's Court regarding Issues concerning the Recognition of Validity of an Economic Contract Signed by the Enterprise Legal Persons Whose Registered Capital Investment Fails to Meet the Minimum Limits Stipulated by Laws and Regulations, an enterprise, whose registered capital investment fails to meet the minimum limit stipulated by laws and regulations, shall not have an legal person qualification, so its debts shall be handled in accordance with the Official Reply of the Supreme People's Court regarding Issues concerning the Assumption of Civil Liabilities in the Case of Revocation or Closeout of an Enterprise Established by Other One. One enterprise established by another enterprise thereof, does not actually have a legal person qualification, and the parent enterprise shall bear its obligations. Therefore, where an enterprise established by another one does not actually have an independent legal person qualification for the registered capital is not in place or the operation is not normative, the parent enterprise shall bear its rights, obligations and liabilities.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.183526

[CLI Code] CLI.C.183526(EN)

责任编辑：李泽鹏

稿件来源：北大法宝英文编辑组（Mani）

审核人员：张文硕

更多精彩，请点击菜单栏“法宝盘点-法宝原创-双语新闻”：

▼往期精彩回顾▼