Source: Financial graphic
table of Contents
- - - - -
1. Legal regulations and regulatory norms provisions on "right of return" of
2. income trading practices and legal characteristics of non-standard business
3. The legal nature and legal consequences of the transaction usufruct
4. Conclusion
Author's note: Since the China Banking Regulatory Commission, "2013 No. 8" was first proposed, "non-standard" concept has always played an important role in banking supervision. 2018 promulgated the "Guiding Opinions on Regulating financial institution asset management business", but the "non-standard" in the scope of formal financial services extended to the whole field. Investigate the reasons for its growing development of the concept of "non-standard" business transaction subject, subject of the transaction, clearing and settlement, transaction information disclosure and other aspects of unchecked "exchange market" rules, which give unlimited financial transactions imagination, also led to unpredictable financial and legal risk. As a basis for its differentiated financial supervision, regulators show a high level of generalization.
"Right of return" is the concept of non-standard business financial institutions often use. Active performance in its different industry practice and earnings of the lack of a clear position in our legal system, the legal nature of uncertainty, lack of supplementary trading rules, the legal consequences of the transaction is difficult to predict, and the resulting enormous legal risk. At the same time, as a concept derived from the trading practices, extension usufruct of a very wide range, try the legal nature of the right of return in the past to define either can not reflect the whole picture of trading gains, too abstract or conclusion, and the reality of the legal system run too far away, insufficient to meet the needs of judicial practice. To help clarify the legal nature of the parties to the transaction of various types of usufruct, purposeful, to build a real and effective trade relations have income right direction to prevent the relevant legal risks, the same day as the paper Task Force "Risk of non-standard business law Financial Institutions" another stage of the research results, based on the non-standard business practice research to understand the usufruct on to the current legal system is based on the right of return and its legal nature of the transaction were analyzed demonstration system is proposed at present non-standard business most usufruct type involved are included in "accounts receivable" category for the appropriate trading rules; while the right part of the proceeds of party representation because of legal restrictions or regulations, the transfer can not be independent, only between the transferor and the transferee view the establishment of a new contract of conditional debt.
Our country does not use the "right of return" is the expression of the NPC and its Standing Committee have enacted laws in. Thus, generally considered "right of return" is not a legal right. However, the relevant judicial and financial regulatory documents have been widely recognized and the use of the concept of "right of return." Although not related to the content of "legal" authority to determine the nature and connotation of the right of return, but reflects the official understanding of the non-standard business transactions practice the right of return is an important basis for finding the legal nature of rights in proceeds.
(A) judicial and administrative norms applicable to the concept "right of return" of
In December 2000, the Supreme Court "interpretation on issues of applying <;; People's Republic of China Guarantee Law> ;;'s (hereinafter referred to as" "Guarantee Law judicial interpretation '') Article 97 states:" to roads and bridges, Highway crossing highway tunnels and other income from real estate or the right quality, in accordance with the provisions of Article 75 of the fourth guarantee treatment ", which will be part of the right to income from real estate into the" "pledge of rights" scope guarantee law. "
Since then, the rights in 2007, "Property Law" Article 223 provisions can include the establishment of the right quality "accounts receivable" and the right of pledge for the relevant registration in Article 228 authorized "credit reporting agency" jobs. Accordingly, the People's Bank of China in the same year "receivables pledge registration", and amended on October 25, 2017 [1]. The provisions of Article 2 (2) expressly sale and pledge of accounts receivable including "energy, transportation, water conservancy, environmental protection, public works and other infrastructure and utility projects usufruct." Compared to the "security law judicial interpretation", the above provisions can be set to expand the scope of the right to pledge the proceeds. Because it is directly authorized to develop based on "Property Law", "accounts receivable pledge registration" should be the current regulatory documents the concept of "right of return" the most authoritative.
State Council level have repeatedly uses the concept of "right of return" an important document. For example in December 2000, "the State Council on the implementation of a number of policy measures to western development notice" (Guo Fa [2000] No. 33) requirements fourth paragraph of Article II: "infrastructure projects to expand the right to charge for the pledge or usufruct loans the range "; in 2014," the State Council on the recent support of a number of major policy initiatives to revitalize the northeast of opinions "(Guo Fa [2014] No. 28) Article VII requirements" related to the pilot study will be policy Zhongguancun national independent innovation demonstration zone to promote the Northeast, encourage exploration in the right to dispose of scientific and technological achievements, usufruct, equity incentives and other tests "; in 2015," the State Council on the highly entrepreneurial innovation and vigorously promote the public a number of policies and measures opinions "(Guo Fa [2015] No. 32) Article X:" compliance by law to promote intellectual property pledge financing, patent licensing fees usufruct securities, insurance and other services patent normalization, large-scale development, financial support for the development of intellectual property. " Documents with market practice, based on the use of this concept in the absence of a strict definition of the legal nature of the right of return, reflecting the government approved the practice of trading income right from one side and acceptance.
(B) the provisions relating to financial supervision norms "right of return" of the transaction
Since 2010, the concept of "right of return" began to appear widely in financial transactions. Since then, regulators gradually attention and continue to strengthen the supervision of the usufruct of the transaction. On the one hand about the practice norms of the "right of return" trading activities, it also reflects the attitude of a limited right of return regulatory approval of the transaction.
2013 China Banking Regulatory Commission on the 8th text "on regulating the issue of commercial bank financing business investment operations," states: "non-standard debt assets are debt assets not traded in the interbank market and stock markets, including but not limited to credit assets, trust loans, entrusted claims, acceptances, letters of credit, accounts receivable, subject to all kinds of (income) usufruct, equity financing with buy-back clauses and so on. " Since then, most of the trading income is included in the category of non-standard business supervision.
2014 Third China Securities Regulatory Commission, "securities companies and fund management companies subsidiaries asset securitization business regulations," states: "(asset securitization) the underlying assets can be business receivables, leasing credit, credit assets, trust benefit rights and other property rights, infrastructure, commercial property and other real estate property or the right to income from real estate and other property or property rights of China Securities Regulatory Commission approved. "Meanwhile, China's fund industry association issued the" asset securitization underlying assets negative list of guidelines " provisions' ability to cash flow usufruct exploitation of mineral resources, land rights and other income generating assets have greater uncertainty, "not as a basis for asset securitization.
April 2016 China Banking Regulatory Commission issued the "Notice on Regulating banking financial institutions credit assets transfer business right" (Yin Jian Ban Fa [2016] No. 82, hereinafter referred to as "2016, No. 82"), for the first time on the "credit-yielding assets the right to "make provision, approved the transfer of the business of credit compliance income right, the right to require the transfer of credit assets shall be registered by the banking credit assets transfer center (hereinafter referred to as: silver Gordon Center) record turnover. In the same year August 1, silver Gordon Center issued a "credit assets transfer of the right of business rules (Trial)" and "credit assets transfer of the right business information disclosure rules (Trial)", on 82 2016 article concretely implemented. Among them, "the right of return of credit assets transfer business rules (Trial)" Article II: "Credit income right refers to the right to obtain credit assets corresponding to the principal, interest and other payments agreed upon."
April 2018 by the State Council, People's Bank of China, Bank Insurance Regulatory Commission, China Securities Regulatory Commission, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange jointly issued the "Guiding Opinions on Regulating the financial institution's asset management business" (Yin Fa [2018] No. 106, hereinafter referred to as "2018 seniority tube new rules "). As the most important recent regulatory norms of financial services, and information management in 2018 new regulations also used multiple times "by the (income) usufruct" expression: where Article X: "Private investment product range by contract, can invest in debt category assets, listed or traded shares, unlisted companies (including debt) and by the (income) usufruct and other assets in line with the provisions of laws and regulations, and strictly abide by Investors in the management requirements. "Article XI provisions "financial institutions asset management products will not invest directly in commercial bank credit assets investment usufruct of commercial bank credit assets by the (income) limit shall be formulated by the financial authorities." Article XV "asset management products directly or indirect investments in unlisted companies and by the (income) usufruct, should be closed asset management products, and clearly its equity by (income) to exit the usufruct arrangement. unlisted companies and by the (income) usufruct exit date no later than the due date closed-end asset management products. "
Display above provisions continue to strengthen the financial regulatory authorities in the "right of return" regulation of trade at the same time, it has been widely recognized as an industry practice of financial transactions subject. "Usufruct" the legality of the concept is no longer the focus of discussion. At the same time, part of the regulatory norms of "right of return" and "beneficiary" merger process, used "by the (income) usufruct" or "subject (income) usufruct," the statement reflects the regulatory authorities for the right to return to a certain extent understand the relationship between the two "right of the trust" "Trust law" and the.
A comprehensive understanding about the judicial, administrative and regulatory norms for the use of related concepts, you can generally identify the "right of return" of financial institutions of non-standard widely used in business is a distinguished property rights underlying assets themselves. It may come from infrastructure and other real estate, may also arise in the equity, credit assets (Creditor), trust (fund and asset management) plans. However, it is not a sufficiently clear legal concept of "property rights" is not sufficient to clear usufruct of the legal nature of the transaction and its legal consequences. Therefore, it is necessary to the analysis of non-standard business transactions practice of usufruct, summarized its legal characteristics, and then proceeds to determine the nature of the legal right to have the practical significance of justice.
After investigation, we found exceptionally rich income trading in non-standard business practice, difficult to describe with a single existing legal system. In order to accurately define the legal nature of the right of return, our non-standard business income trading types and trading patterns were then put together, on this basis, summed up the three legal characteristics directly affect their right to benefits defined nature, advocating for specific types of usufruct classified discussions to determine its position in the current legal system, provide valuable reference for the usufruct business and judicial practice.
(A) the right of return of non-standard type of business
Proceeds arising from the right to the underlying assets, the type of underlying assets is the most important basis for classification. By understanding the industry practice, we believe that a common type of non-standard business income right includes:
1. Property usufruct
Such usufruct to infrastructure and utility projects, represented the right to charge, pointing to a stable future earnings of real estate. Meanwhile, the movable property of great value, such as ships and aircraft, there is also the value of trading gains.
In addition, real estate projects usufruct theory of non-standard business widespread occurrence also belong to this category. But according to our understanding, these real estate projects income trading a lot just to the right of return under the guise of financing guarantee activities, the parties of the right to benefit itself has no interest, no real defining and delivering usufruct. So there is doubt the nature of their transactions.
2. Credit income right
Such income right from financial claims on financial institutions, credit (lending) business acquired, subject of the transaction is expected usufruct financial claims rather than the debt itself, including the expected benefits due loans, factoring, leasing and other financing activities .
3. The right of return financial instruments
It refers to the usufruct right to demand payment based on bills of exchange, promissory notes and checks specified in "Negotiable Instruments" generated. Broadly understood as a right credentials bill, which is the essence of debt assets. But the "Negotiable Instruments" will be strictly limited to human rights-based bill payment claim is "bearer", the underlying assets and the right to request payment can not be separated, which will directly affect the legal nature of the transaction and the consequences of its earnings power.
4. The right of return on equity
Such income rights to company shares as underlying assets, pointing to possible future shareholders return on investment (According to the contract, such transactions may also include gains from the alienation of shares of shareholders).
In theory, other companies in addition to the company's investors (such as a partnership, a sole proprietorship enterprise) will enjoy a return on investment. But according to our understanding of the relevant income trading is very uncommon in the non-standard business, "limited partnership share usufruct" occasional in nature and consequences of the transaction is also similar to the company's return on equity rights, and therefore will not be discussed separately.
5. trusts, asset management plan beneficiary
Beneficiary of such trust property trust scheme, securities companies and fund management companies asset management plan based on assets under management, the legal relationship of trust "beneficiaries" enjoy property interests. It is unique in that "Trust Law" legal nature, trading rules and other such rights were clearly defined.
But it is a case of the right to obtain future capital gains, and other income such beneficial interest seems to be right and there is no essential difference.
6. usufruct on the right of return
We found that, while there is the transfer of infrastructure usufruct of non-standard business practice, will be pledged in accordance infrastructure administrative examination and approval obtained "toll right." For example, in a "highway tolls usufruct asset-backed special programs", the originator's "A Road Development Investment Co., Ltd." The highway price "right of return" to the transfer of 570 million yuan securities firm specific asset management plan; but at the same time, originator in turn has a "right to charge" pledge of the same highway to the information management plan to guarantee the performance of its obligation to repurchase the usufruct.
Because while the same pledge and assignment of rights and incompatible with the deal structure is actually on a statutory right to charge and set up a usufruct, constitute a "right of return on the usufruct."
(Ii) non-standard business income trading common mode
Non-standard business income trading patterns varied, with the transfer of the right of return, but also to the right of return based on asset securitization or pledge financing, even in the name of trading gains realized borrow other commercial purposes. Overall, non-standard business often involves income trading modes include:
1. The one-way transfer of usufruct
As the most basic mode of transaction, the transferor in return the right to complete a one-way transfer of the right of return will be permanently given to the assignee and receive consideration. Non-standard business and earnings of the one-way transfer usually part of a complex transaction structure, to achieve a particular purpose of the transaction.
For example a typical three Fangyin Xin trade cooperation shown in the figure below, C banks unable to meet its customers' financing needs, so contact sufficient funds to finance the bank B by A bank (Bank B permit to carry out bank letter of cooperation may be because of licensing restrictions or compliance requirements can not contract directly with the Trust) issued trust loans. The transaction process, A bank will be by way of interbank transactions transfer to Bank B one-way trust benefits and access to capital, while Bank B Bank C in one direction long-term commitment to the transferee usufruct, as a case involving substantial loans guarantee.
2. gains the right to repurchase
Repurchase agreements are non-standard business, the most common income trading mode. In this case, the right of return will experience the opposite direction at the time of the transaction two conditions are met. The most typical and simplest case that after setting the upper limit of the China Banking Regulatory Commission No. 8 commercial banks to finance capital investment of non-standard assets scale, to interbank bank to buy back the sale of non-standard way of capital gains the right to avoid regulation.
For example, as shown in FIG., A bank transfer silver letter Cooperation trust benefits to the bank B, while the long-term beneficial issued repurchase Undertaking (drawer protocol). Since then, A banking supervision at the time of inspection will show only transfer agreement, which has been displaying a list of non-standard assets, in line with requirements of the CBRC No. 8; and will also issue a transfer agreement and long-term buy-back commitment letter B when faced bank checks to demonstrate that it is not practical to assume a non-standard credit risk. Thus, AB Bank can reach the purpose to avoid the non-standard asset size limit.
3. usufruct based asset securitization
The other type of trading gains subject of the transaction and its specific form is very diverse, but generally for all belong to the usufruct asset securitization of the underlying assets. That is the right person to transfer income related to the special purpose vehicle usufruct trust, asset management plans, asset-backed securities issued by the carrier.
For example, the previously mentioned "securities companies and fund management companies subsidiaries asset securitization business regulations" listed (securitization) that is the basis of assets including immovable property "right of the trust" and "infrastructure, such as commercial property or income from real estate rights. " Similarly, silver Gordon Center "right of return of credit assets transfer business rules (Trial)" Article VII "banking financial institutions credit transfer income right in accordance with the model set up by the trust company trust plan, the transferee income right commercial bank credit "in fact requires credit assets transfer of the right of return must be done in the way of asset securitization.
September 6, 2016, Bank of Jiangsu Huaneng your Credit Trust to carry out credit assets transfer of the right business by silver Gordon Center, founded by Huaneng Trust "Su Yu 2016, the first phase of usufruct bad assets transfer Capital Trust," to undertake Jiangsu subprime lending banks. This is the first single bad credit income right after the transfer of the text in 2016 82 transactions.
4. usufruct pledge financing transactions
以收益权作为担保物进行的质押融资活动亦较为普遍。《应收账款质押登记办法》第二条明确规定“能源、交通运输、水利、环境保护、市政工程等基础设施和公用事业项目收益权”属于“应收账款”质押和转让的标的物。而且，理论上所有可以纳入“应收账款”范畴的收益权类型，例如不动产的未来租金收益、“贷款或其他信用活动产生的债权”、乃至提供服务产生的债权等，都可以作为质押的对象。
5.以收益权交易为名的融资担保活动
虽然以收益权为真实交易标的的各类金融活动已经非常普遍，也获得了官方的认可，但是许多涉及“收益权”的非标业务中当事人其实并不关心收益权本身，仅是将其作为名义上的交易标的实现资金的往来，进而达到融资与担保的目的。
例如，在我们正在处理的一宗地产收益权转让回购纠纷中，某地产公司将其商业地产项目收益权作价十亿元人民币转让给信托公司，并约定每半年支付特定金额利息，三年后以原价回购。但是在签订转让协议前，当事人从未就该房地产项目可能的收益进行过评估测算，转让协议签订后地产公司也从未向信托公司报告过项目的收入与支出情况，信托公司更不掌握项目的财务数据或银行账户。因此，当事人事实上根本不关心作为交易标的的收益权，所谓的收益权范围难以确定，协议签订后更没有履行任何交付手续。结合转让协议中有关固定利息及回购价款的安排，可以明显看出这是一件以收益权转让为名开展的信托贷款业务。
（三）非标业务收益权的重要法律特征
通过上述对非标业务收益权交易实践的分析，可以看出能够创设收益权的基础资产类型多样，交易方式五花八门。当事人在交易过程中，看重的是基础资产在未来可能产生的财产利益。同时，各方之所以选择“收益权”作为交易标的，是希望在将基础资产预期收益变现的同时，不影响基础资产的权属状态。因此，能够产生未来财产价值的事物，即使其收益并不确定（例如公司股权和信托计划份额），理论上都可以作为基础资产抽象出“收益权”部分对外交易。在此情况下，从分析收益权法律性质的角度考虑，我们认为非标业务中的收益权及其交易过程存在以下法律特征：
1. 收益权是基础资产的未来收入，相对于基础资产而言，属于金钱之债
收益权最核心的法律特征是其区别于基础资产本身，指向基础资产未来可以获得的财产利益。而且，在非标业务等典型的商事关系中，这种财产利益基本等于获得特定数额资金的权利。例如高速公路收费权、房地产项目收益权、股权收益权、票据收益权等，其产生收益的基础资产可能是物，也可能是财产性权利。但是无论基础资产是什么，收益权都指向其未来可能的资金利益，即收益权人向他人（可能是基础资产所有者，也可能是其他第三人）主张付款的权利。
同时，收益权交易的受让人并不关心基础资产的其他价值，例如股权中参与公司决策的权利；收益权人也极少对基础资产本身负责，例如高速公路收费权的所有者，除非另有约定，并不负有养护公路的义务。因此，相比于基础资产类型的丰富多样，收益权本身都可以归为金钱债权请求权的范畴。
就此，江西省高院在（2015）赣民二初字第 31 号案中也持相似观点。该案中，法院认为“债券本身含有包括收益权在内的多项权能，权利人可以将其中的一项或多项权能转让给他人行使，而收益权作为一种债权属性，在转让行为之性质与资产转让存在根本差异；故特定资产收益权应定性为债权性质，其处置应当参考债权转让的相关原理”。
2. 收益权依附于基础资产，但又体现了当事人不希望交易基础资产的强烈意愿
收益权严格依附于基础资产。理论上，如果没有其他担保，基础资产的风险将直接体现于其收益上并由收益权人承担。而且，部分基础资产的唯一内涵与价值就是其收益。例如所谓的“信贷资产”（主要为银行贷款），本身就是金钱之债，其收益权，根据《信贷资产收益权转让业务规则（试行）》的定义，为获取对应本金、利息和其他约定款项的权利。因此，如果信贷资产所有人将全部收益权转让，其剩余的利用该资产的方式与渠道将非常有限。
但是，当事人选择收益权作为交易标的，本身即是其不希望直接触动基础资产权属关系的强烈信号。这可能是因为收益权出让人不想或者不能转让基础资产，例如上市公司股权的持有者，基于对公司控制权的需要或者大股东禁售的限制，不便转让公司股权；或者商业银行基于特许经营的限制，不能将其信贷资产直接转让给其他主体。同样，受让人选择受让收益权，也多是希望与基础资产本身进行区别，只获得基础资产产生的现金收入，从而避免持有和管理基础资产，承担其风险与成本。例如高速公路及其他基础设施收益权的投资者，本身并不想承担维护基础设施的责任，自然也对拥有该基础设施没有兴趣。
因此，理论上即使部分收益权与基础资产在内涵与价值上高度重叠，其交易标的的不同也体现了当事人的意思表示，应予区别对待。
3.收益权概念来源于商业实践，外延极其宽广，其性质难以适用单一法律规则进行理解
针对收益权的法律分析面临的最重要现实是这一概念来源于商业实践，其与现有法律制度间没有明确的对应关系。实践中，“收益权”概念的适用范围极其广泛，不仅包括法律上有较为明确定位的基础设施收费权、信托受益权等，更包含商业不动产收益权、票据收益权、股权收益权等几乎所有具有商业价值的未来财产利益。这一现实导致“收益权”虽为单一概念，但其性质至少受两方面重要因素的影响：
首先，部分收益权在与基础资产分离后，新收益权人可以直接向付款义务人主张给付，例如房屋租金收益权，在经必要的债权转让通知程序后，收益权人可以像基础资产所有人（房东）一样直接向承租人主张房租。但是，另外一些收益权因为法律的明确限制，不允许收益权人独立向原给付义务人进行主张，典型的即公司股权和票据。这一差异直接影响收益权的“可转让性”。
其次，不同收益权在未来收益的确定性方面差异巨大。部分收益权（例如高速公路收费权和信贷资产收益权）虽然指向未来收益，但是确定性很高，在是否存在收益甚至收益多少方面都可以准确预期。但是另外一些收益权，例如股权收益权或者当事人并未明确具体范围的房地产项目收益权，其收益难以预测，导致交易标的的确定性存在突出问题。
以上因素导致过往诸多对收益权法律性质进行界定的尝试大都不令人满意。一方面，纷繁复杂的收益权交易实践无法用一个既有的法律制度（例如物权的权能、用益物权等）进行描述；另一方面，足够概括的概念（如“将来债权”、“特殊的财产权利”）又过于抽象，与现实运行的法律制度脱节，不足以满足司法实践对确定性的要求。因此，我们认为对收益权法律性质的分析需要分类讨论，针对具体收益权类型确认其在现行法律体系中的位置。
我们认为，非标业务中的大部分收益权作为未来收益，基于其可转让性，可以纳入“应收账款”范畴进行独立转让；同时由于《信托法》的明确规定，信托受益权及类似的其他资产管理业务收益权的性质与交易规则都可适用《信托法》的有关规定。但是对于股权收益权、票据收益权等受让人不能越过出让人直接向基础资产付款义务人主张收益的情况（不考虑债权人行使代位权的问题），以及因过于缺乏确定性而难以作为转让标的的各类收益权，所谓的“收益权”交易仅构成出让人向受让人承诺的合同之债，通常不具有债权转让和破产隔离的效果。具体而言：
（一）可以独立转让的收益权——针对基础资产的应收账款及信托受益权
1. 内涵广泛的应收账款
“应收账款”是理解非标业务中大部分收益权法律性质的最重要路径。《物权法》第二百二十三条和第二百二十八条给予了应收账款明确的法律地位，确定其为一种可以质押和转让的财产权利。在此基础上，中国人民银行制定的《应收账款质押登记办法》对应收账款的性质及外延进行了细化，明确其为一种包括现有和未来金钱债权的付款请求权。在2017年的修订中，该办法第二条定义部分更增加“依法享有的其他付款请求权”作为兜底规定，进一步扩大了“应收账款”的适用范围。”目前，该办法第二条第二款明确列举的应收账款包括“（一）销售、出租产生的债权，包括销售货物，供应水、电、气、暖，知识产权的许可使用，出租动产或不动产等；（二）提供医疗、教育、旅游等服务或劳务产生的债权；（三）能源、交通运输、水利、环境保护、市政工程等基础设施和公用事业项目收益权；（四）提供贷款或其他信用活动产生的债权；（五）其他以合同为基础的具有金钱给付内容的债权。”
结合上述收益权交易实践，可以看出目前非标业务中涉及的多种收益权，包括基础设施收费权、动产不动产收益权、知识产权收益权、信贷资产收益权，以及其他基于各种商业交易产生的付款请求权，都可以理解为针对基础资产的“应收账款”，进而适用《应收账款质押登记办法》的有关规则。换言之，如果某一收益权的法律性质被认定为应收账款，则其可以独立转让或者质押（且可通过人民银行的登记系统获得权利变动公示效力）。收益权人可以在不通过基础资产所有人（多为收益权出让人）的情况下，直接向基础资产收益的付款义务人（例如基础设施使用者、房屋承租人、知识产权使用人、信贷资产债务人等）主张付款。
就此，目前司法实践也有权威判断：最高人民法院在指导案例53号中[2]，明确认可了污水处理项目收益权的“应收账款”性质，指出：“在《中华人民共和国物权法》（以下简称《物权法》）颁布实施后，因污水处理项目收益权系基于提供污水处理服务而产生的将来金钱债权，依其性质亦可纳入依法可出质的“应收账款”的范畴。因此，讼争污水处理项目收益权作为特定化的财产权利，可以允许其出质。”
2. 应收账款的确定性要求
就某一收益权是否构成“应收账款”问题，除了属于《应收账款质押登记办法》的
定义（即一种付款请求权，且不包括因票据或其他有价证券而产生的付款请求权）和列举的情形，一个重要标准是作为应收账款的未来收益应当具备一定的确定性。
这首先是因为收益权作为一种交易标的，本身必须具备基本的确定性以满足合同成立的要求。[3]例如，假设某交易中的收益权表述为“某一商业地产项目50000平方米范围未来两年的收益”，事后发现无法确定这是项目中的哪50000平方米，则该交易合同可能因标的不明而难以成立。
其次，我国法律制度中的“应收账款”概念因质权而产生，《应收账款质押登记办法》也是以质押为目的对其进行定义和列举。因此当尝试将收益权纳入“应收账款”范畴并适用相应法律制度时，应当理解其是权利质权标的的事实，进而遵守物权特定原则对质押标的确定性的要求。正如程啸教授所言：“并非所有的将来债权都可以作为应收账款而被质押。……虽然权利质权的客体不是有体物，而是权利，但这个权利也必须是已经特定或者可得特定的。出质人以现实享有的某一债权设定权利质权，没有问题。如果他可以随意以所谓的“将来债权”设定质权，这个将来的债权就必须是可得特定的。”[4]
因此，司法实践曾经以缺乏确定性为由否定收益权交易，值得交易当事人注意。如在（2016）沪民申2374号案中，上海市高院确认了上海市第一中级人民法院的判决，认为当事人约定转让银行POS机在未来一定时间内的收益缺乏作为可转让未来应收账款的确定性，当事人间的合同名为保理，实为借贷。
3. 信托收（受）益权
信托收（受）益权应当是非标业务中法律地位最为明确的收益权类型。《信托法》第二条规定：“本法所称信托，是指委托人基于对受托人的信任，将其财产权委托给受托人，由受托人按委托人的意愿以自己的名义，为受益人的利益或者特定目的，进行管理或者处分的行为。”根据信托法理论，信托财产独立于委托人、受托人和受益人的固有财产（在英美法国家，普遍承认“信托”具有独立人格），由受托人为了受益人的利益进行管理。所以信托受益权产生于信托财产，但又相对独立，在权属上归属于受益人。
《信托法》第四十七条规定：“受益人不能清偿到期债务的，其信托受益权可以用于清偿债务，但法律、行政法规以及信托文件有限制性规定的除外”。第四十八条规定：“受益人的信托受益权可以依法转让和继承，但信托文件有限制性规定的除外。”因此，虽然信托财产能否实际产生收益存在较大的不确定性，但是法律明确规定信托受益权具有财产价值且可以转让，其法律性质和交易规则比较确定。但是，非标业务中的信托收（受）益权交易有两点值得注意：
第一，信托受益权是信托受益人的权利，受信托法律关系制约。不同于英美法国家，我国对信托关系的当事人资格及其变更有明确要求：例如《信托公司集合资金信托计划管理办法》第二十九条规定：“信托计划存续期间，受益人可以向合格投资者转让其持有的信托单位。信托公司应为受益人办理受益权转让的有关手续。信托受益权进行拆分转让的，受让人不得为自然人。机构所持有的信托受益权，不得向自然人转让或拆分转让。”因此，信托受益权交易需要符合上述要求。特别是对受让人而言，如果其不能获得“受益人”身份，则其与出让人的交易很可能无法约束信托关系中的其他当事人，其获得的“受益权”仅是针对出让人的债权。
第二，信托收（受）益权可以转让，但是法律并未明确规定其可以质押。信托收（受）益权不属于《物权法》第二百二十三条列举的可以出质的权利中的任何一项，是否属于兜底条款“（七）法律、行政法规规定可以出质的其他财产权利”存在争议。目前，多数学者认为信托收（受）益权可以质押，部分司法判决也认可当事人关于质押的约定。但是部分信托收（受）益权的未来收益存在极大不确定性，且法律法规没有规定其质押公示机制，因此有关行为能否对抗第三人甚至具备破产隔离效力，存在很大疑问。
（二）无法实际转让的收益权——出让人与受让人间的合同之债
虽然多数收益权都可以通过应收账款等法律路径独立转让与质押，但是非标业务实践中的许多收益权交易并不能影响收益权的权属状态。有关交易因为当事人的合意、基础资产的法律限制或者其他各种原因，无法赋予收益权“受让人”直接向基础资产收益付款义务人请求支付的权利。受让人行使其“收益权”，仍需向出让人主张。这种情况下，受让人获得的所谓收益权，实际仅是出让人向其承诺的合同之债，不能约束第三人。同时，由于许多收益的产生具有不确定性，上述交易可以理解为附生效条件的合同：即当或有收益产生时，出让人有向受让人支付收益的义务。
1.当事人意思表示显示收益权并非真实交易标的的交易
收益权交易由当事人通过合同约定。即使大部分收益权都可以独立转让从而使受让人获得直接向基础资产付款义务人主张付款的权利，有关交易性质仍由合同具体条款来确定。如果真实的交易标的并非直接获取基础资产收益的权利，而是产生有关收益后受让人向出让人的付款请求权，则无论有关收益权在法律上是否可以转让，该交易都仅构成出让人与受让人间的一个合同债务，不对第三人产生影响。此类交易至少包括以下三种情况：
第一，出让人与受让人在合同中明确约定由出让人向受让人支付收益。如果合同约定受让人仅向出让人主张权利，则出让人仍是行使收益权的主体，收益权并未通过有关交易发生权利变动。此种情况在非标业务中并不鲜见，例如我们正在处理的一宗案件，当事人在房地产项目收益权转让合同中约定出让人每半年向受让人支付固定数额的收益，且在两方合同中写明了受让人的收款账户，同时没有提及基础资产付款义务人的任何信息。在此情况下，受让人的权利范围仅限向出让人收取固定收益，与房地产项目本身的收益无关。
第二，当事人通过法律行为表示无意交易收益权。此类交易的典型是前文提到的“收益权上的收益权”。在该交易中，出让人在转让高速公路“收益权”的同时，又将同一公路的“收费权”设定质押。由于“质押”与“转让”在法律上不相容（不考虑先质押后经质权人同意转让的情况），如果出让人实际质押了收益权，则有充分理由认为收益权并非转让交易标的，出让人向受让人承诺的仅是一个合同义务。
第三，通过合同履行情况体现当事人无意交易收益权。我们了解的许多收益权交易中，当事人签订了收益权“转让协议”，但是并没有通知基础资产收益的付款义务人，没有移交相关权利证明或法律文件，没有进行变更登记。例如在信托受益权转让交易中，当事人没有知会信托公司有关交易情况，或者信托公司知晓有关交易，但是没有进行受益人的变更登记，当事人也没有提出要求。这种情况下，所谓的收益权交易往往只有一纸合同，缺乏促成权利变动的实际行动，受让人也没有直接获取收益的能力和意愿，则有理由认为当事人的真实意思仅是建立一个合同债务关系。
最后，明确当事人是否有实际交易收益权的意愿，需要综合合同约定、法律关系安排、合同实际履行情况等因素进行判断，其本质是对当事人真实意思表示的探究。
2.股权、票据收益权等法律限制转让的收益权
针对部分基础资产，法律明确限制了可以主张收益的权利人范围。此情况下，即使当事人有明确的转让收益权的意愿，受让人也无法越过出让人直接向基础资产收益的付款义务人主张权利。受让人无法获得可以独立行使的权利，其拥有的仅是向出让人主张收益的合同债权。
根据我国现行法律规定，向公司主张股权收益权的只能是公司认可的股东。《公司法》第四条规定：“公司股东依法享有资产收益、参与重大决策和选择管理者等权利。”《公司法司法解释（三）》第二十四条认可了名义股东向实际出资人承诺其享有投资权益的合同效力，但是并不允许实际出资人未经公司其他股东半数以上同意直接行使股东权利。最高人民法院《关于审理外商投资企业纠纷案件若干问题的规定（一）》第十七条更明确规定：“实际投资者根据其与外商投资企业名义股东的约定，直接向外商投资企业请求分配利润或者行使其他股东权利的，人民法院不予支持。”最后，2017年颁布的《公司法司法解释（四）》确立了公司“利润分配权”，其中请求公司分配利润的主体仅是“股东”。因此，全面解读我国公司法律制度，可以确认只有公司法上的股东可以向公司请求分配利润，行使股权中的收益权能。即使法律认可股东与他人关于股权收益转让协议的效力，该协议也仅能在股东与受让人之间产生合同效力，不能约束公司等其他第三人。换言之，股权收益权受法律限制，不能脱离股权独立转让。
与股权情况类似的还有票据收益权。《票据法》第四条规定：“持票人行使票据权利，应当按照法定程序在票据上签章，并出示票据。……本法所称票据权利，是指持票人向票据债务人请求支付票据金额的权利，包括付款请求权和追索权。本法所称票据责任，是指票据债务人向持票人支付票据金额的义务。”在此基础上，法律规定了“持票人”行使票据权利的一系列规则，赋予了持票人强大的票据权利，但没有允许任何其他人向票据债务人请求支付。因此，所谓的“票据收益权”并不能使受让人脱离票据向票据债务人主张付款，其仅能向持票人主张合同债权。
3.基于合同关系限制转让的收益权
最后，《信托法》第四十八条规定：“受益人的信托受益权可以依法转让和继承，但信托文件有限制性规定的除外。”《合同法》第七十九条规定：“债权人可以将合同的权利全部或者部分转让给第三人，但有下列情形之一的除外：（一）根据合同性质不得转让；（二）按照当事人约定不得转让；（三）依照法律规定不得转让。”因此，部分收益权可能受其得以产生的基础法律关系的限制而不能转让。此时，无论当事人的意愿如何，出让人与受让人间的收益权转让协议通常都不能产生对第三人的效力，至多构成出让人向受让人支付获取的有关收益的承诺。
收益权概念突破现有法律体系制约，抽象出动产、不动产、财产性权利等几乎所有可以产生未来资金收益的事物的共性，极大的增强了资产流动性，满足了交易主体提前变现的需求，是金融创新的重要表现。
随着行业实践的不断发展，行政与司法机关已逐渐接受并认可具有积极意义的收益权交易，金融监管部门更不断探索对收益权交易的有效规范与管理。我们相信，收益权本身的合法性已不再是讨论的重点。未来，收益权交易相关法律法规会日趋完善，司法机关对收益权及其交易的法律性质、交易规则、法律后果的把握也会越来越成熟。这意味着，一方面真实的收益权交易会获得更加稳定的交易预期与充分的法律保护，另一方面，司法机关甄别虚假收益权交易的能力与意愿也会逐步提升。
因此，交易当事人应当准确理解和把握收益权的法律性质，在交易意愿真实、标的清晰、约定详细、预期明确的条件下，积极的开展收益权交易。同时，交易当事人可以充分利用和依赖已有的收益权交易规则及公示机制，通过鲜明的交易形式和完备的权利外观最大程度的保障收益权交易效力。