转载-《跨境担保外汇管理规定》出台后金杜和AllenOvery的解读
国家外汇管理局发布《跨境担保外汇管理规定》
on May 22, 2014
作者：金杜律师事务所 组
2014年5月19日，国家外汇管理局（简称“外汇局”）发布了《跨境担保外汇管理规定》（汇发[2014]29号，简称“《新规》”），自2014年6月1日起施行。与此同时，包括《境内机构对外担保管理办法实施细则》、《国家外汇管理局关于境内机构对外担保管理问题的通知》（即39号文）在内的12项跨境担保的相关规范性文件（简称“现行规定”）废止。
《新规》最突出的亮点是大幅度的简政放权，通过取消或缩小跨境担保的登记范围，厘清跨境担保的外汇管理范围和监管责任边界。具体而言：
《新规》适用并规范所有形式的跨境担保，并将相应跨境担保结构区分为以下三类：(i)
内保外贷（即担保人注册地在境内、债务人和债权人注册地均在境外的跨境担保，见下图结构一），(ii)
外保内贷（即担保人注册地在境外、债务人和债权人注册地均在境内的跨境担保，见下图结构二）和(iii)其他形式的跨境担保（如担保人和债务人注册地均在境内、债权人注册地在境外的跨境担保，见下图结构三）。
将外汇局的核准、登记或备案，以及其他管理事项与管理要求与跨境担保合同的有效性判断脱钩。
对于内保外贷和外保内贷，以事后登记管理代替额度管理、事前审批。
对于其他形式的跨境担保，如境内企业为其借用的外债提供对外担保，均无需登记或备案。
统一规则，不再区别对待融资性担保和非融资性担保。
除境外发债等特殊情况下，不再要求担保人与被担保人之间具有股权关联关系，另外也取消了针对被担保人资产负债比例的要求。
明确允许境内个人提供内保外贷，参照非银行机构管理。
全面取消担保履约核准。
我们也注意到，新规与外汇局2014年2月13日发布的《跨境担保外汇管理规定（征求意见稿）》（简称“《征求意见稿》”）相比也做了进一步调整，比如，取消金融机构的比例自律管理要求、删除跨境担保需要符合中国法律认可的担保形式的要求等。
下表总结了《新规》的具体要求：
概括地来说，《新规》实施后，仅有的审批事项为：
内保外贷结构下，未经外汇局批准，债务人不得通过向境内进行借贷、股权投资或证券投资等方式将担保项下资金直接或间接调回境内使用。
内保外贷业务发生担保履约的，担保人为非银行机构的，在境外债务人偿清因担保人履约而对境内担保人承担的债务之前，未经外汇局批准，担保人须暂停签订新的内保外贷合同。
外保内贷业务发生担保履约的，在境内债务人偿清其对境外担保人的债务之前，未经外汇局批准，境内债务人应暂停签订新的外保内贷合同；已经签订外保内贷合同但尚未提款或尚未全部提款的，未经所在地外汇局批准，境内债务人应暂停办理新的提款。
《新规》是简政放权和资本项目进一步开放的大背景下，外汇局拟对中国现行跨境担保管理作出的重大的突破。我们预计《新规》将受到市场参与者的广泛欢迎，因为它的实施将极大地增强跨境担保的灵活性、确定性、便利性，相应地跨境担保在交易中的使用将得到更大的发挥。比如，之前在市场上广泛运用的由境内母公司提供安慰函等变相担保而搭建的境外融资或境外发债项目，将有可能考虑采用直接的跨境担保来完成。
此外，《新规》对于银行融资业务也提出新的审慎要求。比如，前文提及在某些特定情况下未经外汇局批准，不得签订新的内保外贷合同或办理新的外保内贷业务。这就要求银行在办理这两类业务时，需要特别注意相应的担保人或债务人是否存在限制其进行内保外贷或外保内贷签约或者提款的情况。
当然，《新规》仍然存在诸多不确定之处。比如：
没有明确个人是否可以提供内保外贷、外保内贷以外的其他形式跨境担保。
根据《新规》的规定，境内非银行金融机构提供内保外贷，需要“按照行业主管部门规定，具有相应担保业务经营资格”，但是就中国银行业监督管理委员会（“银监会”）监管的非银行金融机构而言，除金融租赁公司“为控股子公司、项目公司对外融资提供担保”被列为需银监会批准的经营范围外，金融租赁公司的其他担保业务，以及其他非银行金融机构的担保业务并未被列入需经银监会批准的业务范围，因此，实践操作中，外汇局如何判断非银行金融机构是否具有内保外贷的业务资格，仍有待明确。
尽管《新规》将外汇局的核准、登记或备案，以及其他管理事项与管理要求与跨境担保合同的有效性判断脱钩，但《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国担保法〉若干问题的解释》第6条规定：未经国家有关主管部门批准或者登记提供跨境担保的，对外担保合同无效。《中华人民共和国外汇管理条例》第19条规定：提供对外担保，应当向外汇管理机关提出申请，由外汇管理机关根据申请人的资产负债等情况作出批准或者不批准的决定；国家规定其经营范围需经有关主管部门批准的，应当在向外汇管理机关提出申请前办理批准手续。申请人签订对外担保合同后，应当到外汇管理机关办理对外担保登记。上述规定并没有被修改，并且其法律效力高于《新规》。该等法规层面上的不一致是否将在一定程度上影响法院的审理判决，仍有待观察。
SAFE Relaxes Control over Provision of Cross
Border Security
Speed read
19 May 2014, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange
(SAFE) released the long awaited Foreign Exchange
Administrative Provisions on Cross-Border Security and its
implementation guidelines (collectively the New SAFE
Regulations).&&The New SAFE
Regulations will take effect on 1 June 2014 and will supersede a
series of regulations previously issued by SAFE and bring
substantial changes to the current cross-border security regime
(also known to some as the foreign security regime).
This bulletin highlights the key changes to the
current regime, features of the new regime, as well as some
additional structuring options.
the purpose of this bulletin, security includes both
proprietary security and guarantee, and security provider shall be
c and onshore means mainland China, and
offshore means outside mainland China.
Key Changes and New Features
Highlighted
1. &What is cross-border
security?&
Cross-border security
includes:&
security provided by an
onshore security provider for a debt owed by an offshore debtor to
an offshore creditor (neibaowaidai or
内保外贷 in
security provided by an
offshore security provider for a debt owed by an onshore debtor to
an onshore creditor (waibaoneidai or
外保内贷 in Chinese);
other types of security
which may result in cross-border payment or cross-border title
transfer of collateral.&
2. Who can provide/accept cross-border
(a) neibaowaidai (内保外贷)
neibaowaidai, the New SAFE Regulations remove the
requirements for pre-approval, quota limitation and other
qualification requirements in connection with the debtor, including
all financial tests (in terms of, for example, profitability of the
debtor) and shareholding of the security provider in the
debtor.& Such relaxation applies to all types of
security providers. The New SAFE Regulations also expressly allow
onshore individuals to provide neibaowaidai alone, whether
or not a corporate security provider is also involved in the
transaction.
other words, onshore financial institutions qualified to engage in
security provision business, onshore corporates and individuals are
all free to provide neibaowaidai under the new
(b) waibaoneidai (外保内贷)
onshore financial institution which provides a loan (excluding
entrustment loans) or a committed credit facility
(有约束力的授信额度) to an onshore non-financial institution
can accept waibaoneidai.
Other than the above, any other entity is
restricted from accepting waibaoneidai unless otherwise
approved by SAFE.
(c) other types of cross-border security
New SAFE Regulations do not expressly set out any specific
requirement or restriction on who can provide/accept other types of
cross-border security. Given that SAFE now only requires
registration for cross-border security under the
neibaowaidai and waibaoneidai structures, it can be
reasonably concluded that, from SAFE's perspective, all onshore
entities are free to provide/accept other types of cross-border
3. What are the "perfection"
requirements?
New SAFE Regulations now only require post-event registration of
the cross-border security with local SAFE under the
neibaowaidai and waibaoneidai
structures.& Details of the relevant registration
requirements are set out in Appendix 1. No SAFE registration is
required for other types of cross-border security unless otherwise
explicitly required by SAFE.
Subject to the exception mentioned in Appendix 1,
enforcement of any properly registered cross-border security under
a neibaowaidai or a waibaoneidai structure would no
longer require prior SAFE verification.
Note, however, that registration of cross-border
security with SAFE is no longer a "perfection" requirement. The New
SAFE Regulations have helpfully clarified that failure to carry out
any approval, registration or filing (if required for a type of
cross-border security under the New SAFE Regulations) will not
impact on the validity of the security.&
4. Does the restriction on repatriation of
proceeds still apply?
Yes. Notwithstanding that the
approval/registration requirements have been largely relaxed,
restriction on the repatriation of proceeds of an offshore debt
under a neibaowaidai structure still applies. Those proceeds
may not be repatriated, whether directly or indirectly, from
offshore to onshore, whether by way of equity investment or lending
(which includes direct or indirect equity investment in an offshore
company where 50% or more of its assets are located in the mainland
5.& Is there any implication if
the onshore security provider (in case of neibaowaidai) or the
offshore security provider (in case of waibaoneidai) is not
reimbursed in full by the debtor after enforcement?
Yes, until the security provider is fully
reimbursed by the debtor after enforcement of a cross-border
security, the relevant onshore security provider (other than a
bank) under a neibaowaidai structure would be restricted
from providing further cross-border security for
neibaowaidai, and the relevant onshore debtor under a
waibaoneidai structure would be restricted from borrowing
any new loan backed by waibaoneidai.
6. &Can neibaowaidai secure a
derivative transaction?
Yes, provided that the underlying derivative
transaction is entered into by the debtor for hedging purpose, in
line with its business scope and is duly authorised by its
shareholder(s).
7. &Can neibaowaidai secure
offshore bond issuance?
Yes, provided that (a) the issuer is directly or
indirectly owned
(b) the proceeds of the bond
issuance shall be used for an offshore project in which the onshore
parent of the issuer ha and (c) the issuer and
such offshore project have been duly approved by, registered and
filed with, the relevant authorities in charge of outbound
investment. The removal of quota or approval requirement for
neibaowaidai is certainly a welcome change in the context of
an offshore bond issuance, as a direct guarantee by the onshore
parent of the offshore issuer would be a much "cleaner" solution
than the current market practice of obtaining keep-well letters
from the onshore parent.& However, it remains to
be seen whether the restriction on the usage of funding to a
particular project (rather than the widely seen "general corporate
purpose" type of usage), which is not required under the existing
SAFE regime, would reduce the appetite of the issuer's group to
adopt this structure.
What It Means in Practice
1. &New structuring
New SAFE Regulations bring ample opportunities for loan market
participants to explore and develop new structures for cross-border
financing.& We set out below a few
(a) Outbound acquisition financing
Before the New SAFE Regulations come into effect,
a typical outbound acquisition financing (see diagrams 1 and 2 in
Part 1 of Appendix 2) is usually backed by a guarantee (which is
subject to having sufficient SAFE quota or SAFE's case-by-case
approval) or, where such quota and approval are not available, some
form of keep-well arrangement provided by the borrower's onshore
parent.& In some cases, lenders would require a
letter of credit (L/C) to be issued by an onshore bank in support
of the offshore financing.
existing structure has a few downsides, including, for example, the
difficulty in obtaining a SAFE quota or SAFE's approval for the
onshore parent's guarantee, the additional costs that the borrower
will need to incur where a L/C is required and the complications
for big ticket deals where more than one L/C issuing banks need to
be involved due to the limitation on individual bank's quota to
issue such L/C.
Under the New SAFE Regulations, the offshore
lenders can benefit directly from security provided by the onshore
parent or any other onshore company (whether intra-group or not),
as illustrated in diagram 3 set out in Part 1 of Appendix
2.& As mentioned above, such cross-border security
under a neibaowaidai structure is no longer subject to any
shareholding requirement, financial criteria, quota or
approval.& The only remaining formalities are the
registration of the cross-border security with local SAFE after
signing and the overseas credit registration with local SAFE after
enforcement.
(b) Inbound secured financing
Before the New SAFE Regulations come into effect,
under a typical onshore-offshore two-tier inbound secured financing
as illustrated in diagrams 1 and 2&set out
in&Part 2 of Appendix 2), the offshore lenders
would find it difficult to structure around the following
&structural
subordination of the offshore lenders with no direct access to or
benefit from the onshore assets pool/
& cash trapped
onshore with limited ways to transf
& no cross-border
sharing of enforcement proceeds.
Under the New SAFE Regulations, the offshore
lenders can now take security over onshore assets directly to
secure the offshore debt, and offshore and onshore groups of
lenders can also share security over onshore assets, subject to the
restriction on repatriation of proceeds mentioned
above.& Please refer to diagrams 3 and 4 in Part 2
of Appendix 2 for reference.
(c) Cross-border derivative transactions
Under existing SAFE regime, security interest
arrangement is not a common option under an ISDA Master Agreement
between offshore entities and onshore counterparties due to
practical issues with SAFE registration. Given the nature of
derivative transactions, it is difficult to specify a secured
amount as the exposure of the parties (mark-to-market) is subject
to frequent changes. In practice, this has created difficulties in
registering the security interest with SAFE.&
Failure to complete the SAFE registration may have an impact on
validity of the security. Under the New SAFE Regulations, security
interest arrangements under a CSA will be categorised as other
types of cross border security which are not subject to SAFE
registration. This new development would have a significant impact
on the consideration of the counterparties in determining the use
of a New York law CSA or an English law CSA in cross border
transactions.
2.& Impact on existing
leveraged transactions where all subsidiaries of the target group
are required to accede as new security providers to the extent
permissible under applicable laws, it now becomes feasible under
the New SAFE Regulations for onshore subsidiaries to accede to the
finance documents and provide guarantee or security over their
assets, subject to the restriction on repatriation of proceeds
mentioned above.
Issues to be Further
1.& Cross-border security in
New SAFE Regulations remain silent on one frequently asked
question,&which is whether SAFE's regulations and
requirements relating to cross-border security also apply to
cross-border security denominated in RMB. This issue still needs to
be further clarified by the authorities.
2.& Scope of restriction on
repatriation
remains to be seen to what extent the restriction on repatriation
of proceeds will apply in transactions where the proceeds are not
used towards any of the restricted purposes expressly set out in
the New SAFE Regulations, but, for example, are used to replenish
the borrower's own funds which may have been directly or indirectly
repatriated onshore.
3.& Additional due
diligence/monitoring requirements
New SAFE Regulations provide that, in case of neibaowaidai, the
onshore security provider shall (a) check, among other things, the
debtor's credibility, funding purpose and repayment sources, and
whether the transaction is in compliance with applicable laws and
regulations, and (b) monitor the debtor's use of proceeds from the
relevant financing. It is questionable how a corporate security
provider, which may not have sufficient resources and experience,
will be able to comply with such due diligence and monitoring
requirements.
Conclusions
The New SAFE Regulations are likely to fundamentally change the
landscape of any financing involving onshore credits and onshore
assets.& They will introduce simpler and cleaner
financing structures.& They also brought much
needed legal certainty to the validity and enforceability of
cross-border security.& This, coupled with the
recent development in other areas such as the group cash-pooling
arrangement in the Shanghai Free Trade Zone and RMB
internationalisation, is likely to help many MNCs, Chinese and
foreign alike, to access more funding options and to tap into
cheaper funding sources much faster.
APPENDIX 1
CROSS-BORDER SECURITY - REGISTRATION
REQUIREMENTS
Registration applicable to neibaowaidai
and waibaoneidai include:
(a) neibaowaidai:
&after signing,
security registration by the onsho
&after enforcement,
overseas credit registration (对外债权登记) by the onshore security provider in
respect of its subrogation claim against the offshore
Note that in the case of any neibaowaidai
under which the secured amount cannot be reasonably determined on
day one (e.g. a completion guarantee without a definite maximum
compensation amount), no registration is required after signing but
enforcement will be subject to local SAFE's prior
verification.
waibaoneidai:
&after signing, no
after enforcement, short-term
foreign debt registration by the onshore debtor in respect of the
offshore security provider's subornation claim against the onshore
APPENDIX 2
NEW STRUCTURING OPTIONS
PART 1 - Outbound Acquisition
Diagram 1: Existing Structure 1
Diagram 2: Existing Structure 2
Diagram 3: Alternative Structure
-&&Inbound Secured
Diagram 1: Existing Structure 1
Diagram 2: Existing Structure 2
Diagram 3: Alternative Structure 1
Diagram 4: Alternative Structure 2
*Note: Under both alternative structures set out
in diagram 3 and diagram 4 above, the provision of the offshore
loan is subject to the restriction on repatriation of
proceeds.&
已投稿到：
以上网友发言只代表其个人观点，不代表新浪网的观点或立场。后使用快捷导航没有帐号？
只需一步，快速开始
扫一扫，访问微社区
只需一步，快速开始
扫一扫，访问微社区
查看: 1462|回复: 5
关于内保外贷与跨境直贷的区别？
累计签到：116 天连续签到：1 天
注册用户可享用更多功能，请注册。
才可以下载或查看，没有帐号？
对于以上两种业务，内保外贷有所了解。内保外贷是指担保人注册地在境内，债务人和债权人注册地均在境外的跨境担保。想请教下各位大大跨境直贷跟内保外贷有啥区别呢？最好能举个列子区分下。
官方微信公众号：汇天10588
累计签到：473 天连续签到：9 天
跨境直贷，应该是在全口径跨境宏观审慎的框架下，由海外银行直接向境内的授信主体发放贷款。债务人是境内企业，债权人是海外银行。
官方微信公众号：汇天10588
累计签到：116 天连续签到：1 天
跨境直贷，应该是在全口径跨境宏观审慎的框架下，由海外银行直接向境内的授信主体发放贷款。债务人是境内企 ...
谢谢，您说的有点类似内保外债？
官方微信公众号：汇天10588
累计签到：473 天连续签到：9 天
可以没有“内保”流程，直接用协议的方式，给境内企业放款
官方微信公众号：汇天10588
移动客户端下载
微信公众号：汇天10588
Powered by内保外贷 内保外贷解释_百度文库
两大类热门资源免费畅读
续费一年阅读会员，立省24元！
内保外贷 内保外贷解释
大小：853.50KB
登录百度文库，专享文档复制特权，财富值每天免费拿！
你可能喜欢外保内贷和内保外贷的区别
银行根据境外代理行开立的融资性保函或备用信用证，向在中国境内设立的外商投资企业进行融资。即以外资企业提供的有效和可接受的担保为前提，以银行境外代理行信用为中介，以备用信用证或保函为载体，帮助外资企业在中国获得授信上的支持和便利。
借款人（境内企业）应符合以下基本条件：
1.资信状况良好，具有充足的反担保能力；
2.具有我行行核定的授信额度或出具全额保证金；
3.符合融资类保函申请人的基本条件；
4.愿意为借款人融资向天津银行提供无条件且不可撤消的反担保；
5.符合国家关于境内机构涉外担保的有关规定；
6.已在外汇局办理境外投资外汇登记手续；
7.借款人不得为亏损企业；
8.有健全的组织机构和财务管理制度。
1.银行境外代理行通过对境外公司进行调查、评估，并了解境内企业融资、经营情况后，开出合格的担保保函或备用信用证。
2.外保内贷的授信主体只能是外商投资企业，即中外合资企业、中外合作企业和外商独资企业。
3.外保内贷的授信额度以外商投资企业的投注差为限，即外保内贷的最大授信额度=经批准的总投资额度-外商投资企业注册资本。
4.外保内贷在业务发生时仅须向外管局报备，在授信到期日需要履约时，才需要向外管局申请核准该笔授信业务的外债额度。
5.外保内贷即外汇担保项下人民币贷款，是由境外金融机构或境内外资金融机构提供信用保证（含备用信用证）由，我行向境内外商投资企业发放的人民币贷款。
1.外保内贷授信主体只能是外商投资企业；
2.授信额度以外商投资企业的投注差为限；
3.在业务发生时须向外管局报备，在授信到期日需要履约时向外管局申请核准该笔授信业务的外债额度。
1.满足企业固定资产投资和流动资金需求；
2.企业有真实贸易背景支持，融资较为便利；
3.无需提供额外担保、操作便捷，被广泛认定为低风险业务。
某香港公司在境内有一注册子公司A，因有项目需要人民币资金，该公司向境外银行申请开立保函（或备用信用证）给银行，银行收到保函进行审核通过后，为境内企业提供人民币授信，并根据A企业情况及其保函内容进行授信安排，为A企业进行资金支持。
该业务指银行应融资申请人的要求，为解决其在出口业务项下的资金周转问题，以出口信用保险公司承保为控制风险方式之一，并以其出口应收款项为第一还款来源的融资业务。
申请人（境内企业）应符合以下基本条件：
1.资信状况良好，具有充足的反担保能力；
2.具有我行行核定的授信额度或出具全额保证金；
3.符合融资类保函申请人的基本条件；
4.愿意为借款人融资向天津银行提供无条件且不可撤消的反担保借款人应符合以下条件：
1.符合国家关于境内机构涉外担保的有关规定；
2.已在外汇局办理境外投资外汇登记手续；
3.借款人不得为亏损企业；
4.有健全的组织机构和财务管理制度。
凡具有进出口权或对外承包经营权或其他涉外经营权；
资信良好的企业在银行开立人民币或外币账户，并与银行建立了良好业务关系；
3.在受理保函业务委托时，银行应对申请人资格、申请书内容、业务背景、相关文件和保函格式进行审查；
4.在受理保函业务委托时，银行应对客户进行实地调查客户资信情况，业务背景等；
5.按国家法律法规和国际惯例办理保函业务原则，应遵循《中华人民共和国担保法》及其司法解释、其他相关法律法规，遵守中国银行业监督管理委员会、中国人民银行和国家外汇管理局及其它管理部门的相关政策和管理规定；应遵守联合国制裁决议等有关规定；如在保函中注明依据国际惯例，应注意严格遵守惯例规则的相关要求办理保函业务。
6.按照统一授信规定办理业务的原则，该业务纳入统一授信管理，应在核定的授信额度内出具保函；或按照低风险业务要求交纳足额保证金或以银行承兑汇票、存单等质押后办理。
7.按照申请人委托和指示办理业务的原则，银行处理各项保函业务必须严格按客户的书面委托指示行事，严格区分双方责任；
8.按照规定权限办理业务的原则，各分支机构应该严格按照总行的授权规定和授权范围办理业务，超过授权范围的，逐笔上报总行审批办理，不得越权。
1.申请人应按银行授信制度要求提交现时有效的营业执照、组织机构代码证、必要的经营许可文件以及其它有关资格文件，我行据以核实申请人具有相应的经营范围及业务资格；
2.保函业务项下的保证金应严格管理，专款专用，不得挪用，各笔保函之间的保证金不得串用；
3.银行开立的保函原则上不可转让，如业务需要可建议申请人采取款项让渡的方式；
4.审核通过后银行向受益人开具融资性保函或备用信用证，境外代理行向借款人提供融资，用途主要包括：流动资金贷款、项目/股本贷款、贸易融资等；
5.申请人向银行申请开立融资性保函或备用信用证，银行审查申请人资信情况、被担保人的基本状况及反担保落实情况。
6.与境外代理行联系妥当。
1.享受境外贷款的低利率，降低资金成本；
2.缓解银行目前贷款规模从紧，以致企业资金紧张的局面。
企业D从事油脂类商品进口业务，企业法人在新加坡注册了公司E，公司E与公司D有正常的业务往来，公司E流动资金紧张，由于刚刚在境外成立等因素，公司在新加坡资困难较大。企业D在银行有外汇业务授信额度，向银行申请开立融资性保函，受益人为公司E，金额1000万美元。银行通过对企业D、公司E资信情况的审核，以及企业D向银行出具无条件不可撤销的反担保。
经审核通过，银行向受益人公司E开具融资性保函1000万美元，境外代理行凭借银行出具的保函对公司E进行融资，融资额度为1000万美元。公司E获得了流动资金的支持，由于境外融资成本较低，公司E节约了财务费用，境内银行对于企业D的融资不占用银行贷款规模，银行承担保函见索即付的义务。
更多链接：《》
已投稿到：