前言
文康君益诚律师联盟处理过诸多涉及澳大利亚的业务，在此基础上联盟成立了澳洲业务团队，团队成员包括多位能以英语为熟练工作语言的中国律师以及澳大利亚注册律师，其中王欲弘律师在中澳法律、投资、贸易、移民等业务领域深耕多年，还运营着以投资业务为主的澳洲基金和澳中投资平台。团队国际法律顾问祝福律师拥有澳洲律师牌照近十年，作为在澳大利亚长大的华人，熟悉中澳两国文化，处理了大量中澳跨境法律事务，经验丰富。
澳洲业务团队可为文康君益诚联盟客户提供与中国-澳大利亚有关的投资、贸易、移民、跨国婚姻、诉讼等全方位、一站式的商业和法律服务。
董事欺诈：法律后果与司法救济
Directors Fraud: Consequences and Remedies
上周文章讨论了澳大利亚1975年《家庭法》是如何对待家庭全权信托问题的。
本文将从诉讼的角度讨论董事欺诈，以及在澳大利亚法律框架下的后果和救济措施。
Last weeks article discussed how Family Discretionary Trusts are treated under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
This article will discuss director fraud from a litigation perspective along with consequences and remedies available under the Australian legal framework.
1案例研究：挪用资金
Case Study: Misappropriation of Funds
对于澳大利亚2001年《公司法》所规定的董事责任的民事和刑事法律后果与依据普通法/衡平法能够获得的司法救济之间复杂的相互关系，我们可以通过一个常见的案例进行很好的说明。
The at times complicated interplay between director duties as stipulated under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), its civil and criminal consequences, and the remedies available under Common Law and Equity, can be best illustrated through an examination of a not uncommon scenario.
1. 背景
Background
“李娜”是2014年移居澳大利亚墨尔本的一位富豪。定居后，她通过彼此共同的朋友认识了“大卫”，并与大卫成为朋友。
“Lina” is a wealthy individual who migrated to Melbourne Australia in 2014. After settling down, she met “David” through mutual friends and developed a friendship thereafter.
2015年，大卫为寻求在澳大利亚房地产市场的机会而辞去了会计的工作。他用自己的资金在悉尼购买了一块土地，他将地块分割后单独出售，并从中获利。
In 2015, David quit his job as an accountant in order to pursue opportunities in the Australian property market. He purchased a block of land with his own funds in Sydney which he subdivided and sold individually at a profit.
大卫的第一次冒险尝试盈利了，并开始了奢侈的生活。
David’s first venture was profitable and begin to live lavishly.
2016年，大卫决定收购另一块土地，以复制他先前的成功，从而支持他奢侈的生活方式。这一次大卫不仅仅打算分割并出售土地，还打算开发土地，以增加收益。
In 2016, David decided to acquire another block of land in order to replicate his previous success and to support his lavish lifestyle. This time he intended not only to subdivide and sell, but also develop the land in order to increase its profitability.
由于资金紧张，大卫带着这一投资“机会”接近李娜，并表示土地位于悉尼一个发展迅速且潜力巨大的地区。
Strapped for funds, David approached Lina with this investment “opportunity” and represented it as being located in an area of rapid growth and great potential in Sydney.
大卫建议李娜共同成立一家等额股份的公司，用于收购、分割、开发和出售地产，收购、分割和开发的总成本估值为600万澳元，其中300万澳元将用于收购土地，其余用于分割和开发土地。
David advised Lina that they will form a company of equal shares for the purpose of acquiring, subdividing, developing and selling the properties, and that the total cost of acquisition, subdivision and development is estimated to be AUD$6m with AUD$3m used for the acquisition of the land and the rest for its subdivision and development.
经过多次接洽且大卫承诺投资剩余的300万澳元后，2016年年中李娜同意为该项目投资300万澳元。
In mid-2016 and after being approached on several occasions, Lina agreed to invest AUD $3m in the project with David promising to come up with the remaining AUD$3m.
整个项目将在2年内完成，由大卫负责公司运营，并将签署所有必要的个人担保，李娜无须签署此类文件，李娜欣然同意。
The entire project was to be completed in 2 years with David handling the company’s operations and will sign any necessary personal guarantees without the involvement of Lina. This Lina agreed to readily.
两人成立了“AA开发非公众有限公司”（下称“AA开发公司”），但公司成立时开设的银行账户允许大卫可以独自从该账户中提款。
The pair formed AA developments Pty Ltd with a company bank account set up where David is able to draw from independently.
李娜相信与大卫的友谊和他先前的成功，于是将300万澳元转账到这个账户上。
Trusting in David’s friendship and his previous success, Lina then transferred AUD$3m to the account.
获得李娜的投资后，接着大卫以200万澳元的价格收购了这块土地，并开始进入申请分割的程序。土地的成本为200万澳元，而非300万澳元，这一事实大卫没有向李娜披露。
Having obtained Lina’s investment, David then proceeded to acquire the land for AUD$2m and begin the process of applying for subdivision. The fact that the land cost was AUD$2m and not AUD$3m was not disclosed to Lina.
在此后超过18个月的时间里，虽然当地政府批准了这块土地的分割计划，但土地并未进入开发阶段。
For more than 18 months thereafter, the land, although with the local government having approved the subdivision plans, did not progress to the development stage.
2. 大卫的不正当行为
David’s unconscionable conduct
李娜并不知道的事实是，她投资的300万澳元中只有150万澳元用于购买土地，剩余50万澳元的土地款是用抵押贷款支付。大卫用李娜剩余的150万澳元以其妻子的名义购买了另一处房产。
Unbeknownst to Lina, out of the AUD$3m which she invested, only $1.5m was used for the acquisition of land, with an AUD$500,000 mortgage forming the remaining funds for settlement. The remaining AUD$1.5m was used by David to purchase another property under his wife’s name.
大卫没有对该项目进行任何现金投资。
David did not make any cash investment into the project.
2019年初李娜找到大卫，并向其询问资金使用情况，但未得到令人满意的答复。
In early 2019, Lina approached David and questioned him as to the use of funds but did not receive a satisfactory response.
随后，李娜聘请了一名律师进行财产所有权的调查。调查显示土地仅以大卫的名义而非以AA开发公司的名义登记的。大卫这样做是为了在李娜不知情或不参与的情况下获得抵押贷款。
Subsequently, Lina engaged a solicitor to conduct a property title search. This revealed that the land was registered in the sole name of David instead of AA development. David did so in order to obtain the mortgage without Lina’s knowledge or involvement.
在发现这一欺诈行为后，李娜聘请了一名律师来维护她的权利并追回她的投资款。
After uncovering the deceitful conduct, Lina engaged a solicitor to enforce her rights and recover her investment.
抛开起诉的证据困难不说，李娜的困境在于，她能否从大卫和其妻子（交易的第三方）的个人财产中追回自己的资金。
Disregarding the evidential difficulties in such matters for litigation, Lina’s predicament lies in her ability to recover her funds through the personal assets of David and his wife who is deemed to be a third party to the transaction.
2董事欺诈及挪用资金
Director Fraud and Misappropriation of Funds
2001年《公司法》规定了公司董事的职责以及违反职责的情形。在此我们重点讨论董事行为被认定为欺诈的情况。
The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) stipulates a company director’s duties and in which circumstances they will be breached. Pertinent to our discussion are those situations where the acts of the director are determined to be fraudulent.
就上述案情而言，大卫显然滥用了其董事职务，从而能获取和控制公司的资金，并挪用资金以谋取个人利益。
In relation to the above scenario, David clearly abused his position as a director by misappropriated the funds for his personal gain and benefit.
显然，大卫的行为将同时构成民事侵权和刑事犯罪，可能产生以下后果：
· 被判处刑事犯罪，并处最高200,000澳元的罚款或判处最多五年的监禁，或两者并处，
· 违反民事处罚的规定（法院可命令大卫向联邦政府支付最高200,000澳元的罚款），
· 对公司或他人遭受的任何损失或损害承担个人赔偿责任，
· 禁止其管理公司。
It is clear that David’s conduct will amount to both a civil and criminal offence, with possible consequences such as:
· be found guilty of a criminal offence with a penalty of up to a maximum of $200,000, or imprisonment for up to five years, or both,
· have contravened a civil penalty provision (and the court may order David to pay to the Commonwealth up to $200,000),
· be personally liable to compensate the company or others for any loss or damage they suffer,
· be prohibited from managing a company.
3李娜的诉讼方案
Lina’s Course of Action
1. 刑事责任
Criminal liability
对于有欺诈行为的董事而言，确实有可能会被监禁，但这通常始于被欺诈的投资者向澳大利亚证券和投资委员会（ASIC）投诉。
For directors who have engaged in fraud, there is a real likelihood of imprisonment, but this often starts with the defrauded investor making a complaint to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (“ASIC”).
澳大利亚证券和投资委员会是一个独立的澳大利亚政府机构，作为澳大利亚的公司监管机构，能够调查和起诉白领犯罪。如果ASIC经过调查认为可以满足证据标准的，则将开启起诉程序。
ASIC is an independent Australian government body that acts as Australia’s corporate regulator and has the ability to both investigate and prosecute white-collar crime. After investigation, and if ASIC deems that the evidential standard can be satisfied, they will begin the prosecution process.
一个相似的例子是，悉尼中级人民法院的陪审团裁定史蒂芬·威廉·希尔先生犯有六项欺诈性挪用公款罪。
An analogous example is where a Mr. Steven William Hill was found guilty of six charges of fraudulent misappropriation by a Sydney District Court jury.
ASIC声称，在2006年1月到2007年2月期间，希尔先生通过希尔·史蒂芬非公众有限公司和国际金融联盟（Aust）非公众有限公司诱使不同的投资者投资约618,000澳元，以获得位于昆士兰州的“房屋和土地”地产开发的利益。
ASIC alleged that between January 2006 to February 2007, Mr. Hill through Hill Stephens & Associates Pty Ltd and International Finance Consortium (Aust) Pty Ltd induced various investors to pay approximately $618,000 to acquire interests in a 'house and land' property development located in Queensland.
陪审团裁定希尔先生犯有欺诈性挪用281,000澳元投资资金的罪行，这些被挪用的投资资金曾被直接从公司的银行账户中支付给他本人和其他第三方。
The Jury found Mr. Hill guilty of fraudulently misappropriating $281,000 of the invested funds that were directed to company bank accounts to make payments to himself and other third parties.
中级法院判处希尔先生至少在一年零九个月的有期徒刑后才有资格获得假释。
The District court sentenced Mr. Hill to imprisonment with a minimum of one year and nine months to be served before becoming eligible for parole.
不幸的是，判处监禁无助于李娜追回投资款，并且在挪用的资金转换为第三方财产权的情况下，（追回投资款）可谓困难重重。
Unfortunately, a prison sentence will not aid in Lina’s recovery of her investment, and substantial difficulties are present in circumstances where the misappropriated funds are converted to property rights of a third party.
- 推定信托作为一种救济手段
Constructive trust as a remedy
救济性的推定信托是争议最大且最复杂的衡平法准则之一。因此，本文并非旨在为读者提供详尽的剖析，而是试图利用上述案例研究来说明当普通法救济措施不够充分的情况下其（体现出的）可利用性和效力。
The remedial constructive trust is one of the most debated and complicated equitable doctrines. As such, this article does not purport to provide readers with a detailed dissection, but rather seeks to use the above case study to illustrative its availability and potency when common law remedies will not suffice.
斯奈尔绕开了历史悠久的哲学和法学辩论，在其《衡平法准则》（第28版）192页意味深长而简洁的摘要中这样写到：
Bypassing its long history of philosophical and legal debate, an eloquent and succinct summary can be found in Snell’s Principles of Equity (28th edn) 192:
推定信托是衡平法意识得以表达的准则。如果财产是在合法所有权人可能非善意保留受益权的情况下获得的，则衡平法将转换其为受托人。
A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression. When property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee.
显然，主要问题在于大卫行为的“不正当性”。
Clearly, the overall concern is the “unconscionability” of David’s conduct.
简言之，当财产所有人（大卫的妻子）主张自己在财产中的受益权而否认他人（李娜）的受益权的行为被认定为不正当时，此时推定信托通过法律应运而生。
To put simply, a constructive trust arises by operation of law whenever the circumstances are such that it would be unconscionable for the owner of property (David’s wife) to assert his or her own beneficial interest in the property and deny the beneficial interest of another (Lina).
其主要特点概括如下：
a） 如果有另一种救济手段更适合公正地处理案情，则推定信托将不会被当作财产性救济手段；
b） 在评估推定信托的适当性时，救济措施对特定第三方的潜在影响是相关考虑因素之一；
c）救济性的推定信托是衡平法的产物，它只有在时机十分适当时方可通过普通法的诉讼程序使用，特别是不存在先前受托责任的情况下。
Its principal features can be summarised as follows:
a) The constructive trust will not be awarded as a proprietary remedy if another remedy can more appropriately do justice to the merits of the case;
b) In assessing the appropriateness of a constructive trust, the potential impact of the remedy on identified third parties is a relevant consideration;
c) The remedial constructive trust is a creature of Equity, and it will only be available in the most appropriate circumstances in a course of action under Common law, especially where a pre-existing fiduciary duty does not exist.
在目前的情况下，法院可以判定资产的所有者（大卫的妻子）作为推定受托人，为李娜的利益而持有该资产。换言之，法院将认定李娜目前拥有或自始至终拥有大卫妻子持有的财产的受益权。
In the current scenario, the Court may make a determination that the normal owner of the asset (David’s wife) holds it as a constructive trustee for the benefit of Lina. In other words, the court will treat Lina as having, or as having had, a beneficial interest in property held by David’s wife.
由于对大卫的偿债能力存有疑问，因此可以寻求一种有利的救济办法，即推定信托。主张推定信托也可为寻求该资产的中间救济提供坚实的基础。
As there is doubt as to David’s solvency and ability to repay Lina, a constructive trust may be an advantageous remedy to be sought. This assertion of a constructive trust may also provide a firm foundation for seeking interlocutory relief in relation to the assets in question.
大卫个人偿还李娜债务的可能性，以及李娜能否对大卫妻子持有的财产追索其受益权，都将是法庭要考量的因素。
The likelihood of David being able to repay Lina’s debt personally, and the ability of Lina to trace her beneficial interest to the property held by the wife will weigh in the court’s mind. - 个人破产：债权人申请（破产）
Personal bankruptcy: creditor’s petition
为了走出通常令人困惑且复杂的衡平法准则领域，李娜可以采取的另一条途径——作为股东代表公司提起诉讼（称为股东诉讼），以惩罚大卫在运营公司时的不当行为。
Stepping out of the often confusing and complex realm of Equitable doctrines, another route which Lina can take is to litigate on behalf of the company as a shareholder (known as a shareholder’s litigation) to punish David’s improper corporate conduct.
由于大卫违反了其作为董事的职责，法院可能会裁定大卫欠公司一笔与挪用资金数量相当的债务。如果大卫无法通过他名下的资产偿还债务，可以通过债权人的请求权申请大卫破产。
As David has breached his duties as a director, the court would likely determine that David owes the company a debt in the amount of the misappropriated funds. If David is unable to repay this debt through assets under his name, an application to bankrupt David can be made through a creditor’s petition.
一旦某人破产，破产管理人便被指定管理破产者的财务事务。管理人的主要任务是（在法律允许的情况下）收集破产人的所有资产，以及将其出售并分配给债权人。
Once a person has been made a bankrupt, a “trustee in bankruptcy” is appointed to manage their financial affairs. The main aim of the trustee is to collect all of the bankrupt’s assets (as allowed by law) and to sell them and distribute them amongst creditors.
然而，由于大卫在破产前已经处置了这些资产，管理人可以从收到该资产的妻子那里收回破产前的资产。在破产中这被称为（资产）“追回”。
However, as David has disposed of these assets just before bankruptcy, the trustee is permitted to recover those pre-bankruptcy assets from his wife who have received them. This is known as a “claw-back” in bankruptcy.
管理人只能在特定时间段和特定情况下行使追回权， 其中包括：
· 破产前五年内进行的交易，且交易价格低于市场价值的，可被收回；
· 破产人为了对抗债权人而转移的资产，在该情况下的追回没有时间限制；
· 在破产人已丧失偿付能力但尚未破产的情况下，优先偿付某债权人，使其比其余无担保债权人优先获得受偿的，追回的期限为破产开始前的六个月。
The trustee’s power to claw-back can only be made for certain periods of time and in certain circumstances. Some of these are as follows:
· transactions made within five years before the bankruptcy and which were made for less than market value can be clawed back,
· the transfer of assets by a bankrupt which were undertaken with the intention to defeat creditors. A claw-back in such circumstances has no time limit.
· preferential payments made to creditors which result in them receiving a preference over the remaining unsecured creditors at a time when the bankrupt was already insolvent but not yet bankrupt. The time limit for such a claw-back is six months prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy.
如果破产，大卫面临的其他后果有：
· 如果其收入超过规定的数额，则必须向受托人强制付款以偿还其债务；
· 他出国旅行的能力将受影响；
· 他将出现在国家个人破产名册（NPII）上；
· 他可能无法获得资助和贷款。
If bankrupt, some of the other consequences for David are:
· if he earns more than a set amount, compulsory payments must be made to the trustee for the repayment of his debts;
· his ability to travel overseas will be affected;
· his name will appear on the National Personal Insolvency Index (NPII)
· he may not be able to obtain finance and loans.
自大卫提交财产状况说明书之日起，破产通常会持续3年零1天。他很有可能将竭力避免个人破产的发生。
Bankruptcy normally lasts for 3 years and 1 day from the day David files his statement of affairs and is likely a situation which he will seek desperately to avoid.
4结论
Conclusions
在本案例研究中，李娜的过错在于：一，出于对大卫的信任，而未在进行项目前做适当的尽职调查；二，不愿意承担超出其投资范围的个人责任，（这可以理解）；三，更重要的是，在尚不熟悉的经济和法律环境中（投资时），没有事先获取中肯的法律建议。
In this case study, Lina’s mistake lies in her trust in David, not conducting the appropriate due diligence prior to pursuing the project, understandably not willing to incur personal liability beyond her investment, and importantly, not obtaining prior good legal advise in a still unfamiliar economic and legal environment.
如果通过尽职调查，李娜实际上已经确定该项目将盈利并坚持投资，则可以有法律上可行的方案对李娜进行保护。
If through due diligence, Lina has in fact determined that the project will be profitable and persists to invest, there are legal options available for her protection.
首先，如果李娜不愿意或不能参与该项目的管理或监督，则可以使用单位信托模式为她提供法律保护，使其既不承担个人责任，又可以避免通常困难重重的揭开公司面纱的行为。
Firstly, if Lina is unwilling or unable to be involved in the management or oversight of the project, a Unit Trust structure could be utilised to offer her legal protection from both undertaking personal liability and to negate the often difficult act of piercing the corporate veil.
这种信托模式可能会任命AA 开发公司为公司受托人，信托单位持有人（李娜和大卫）为受益人。
Such a trust structure could involve AA development Pty Ltd being appointed the corporate trustee with the unit holders (Lina and David) being the beneficiaries.
信托契约还可以明确规定李娜作为信托单位持有人有权罢免和任命新的受托人，使她能够控制受托人的行为。
The trust deed could also expressly stipulate Lina’s power as a unit holder to remove and appoint a new trustee, providing her with the ability to control the acts of the Trustee.
单位信托模式还将为李娜提供额外的保护，使其避免承担信托基金以外的责任，特别是当AA 开发公司的董事寻求个人担保时，同时保障李娜信托财产的所有权。
The Unit trust structure would also provide Lina with added protection from incurring liability outside of the trust funds, especially if personal guarantees are sought from the directors of AA development, whilst simultaneously providing her with proprietary rights to the trust properties.
此外，受托人与受益人之间的信托责任本质上是存在的，这在一定程度上解决了通过普通法诉讼程序寻求救济性推定信托的困难。
Further, as a fiduciary duty between the trustee and beneficiary exists inherently, this would to an extent solve the difficulty of seeking a remedial constructive trust through a common law course of action.
最后，上述案例并非特例。谨慎的起诉者应当了解董事欺诈的犯罪手法以及其可能为自己准备的法律保护。鉴于此，在证据确凿的情况下，起诉者应根据澳大利亚的法律框架要求董事承担个人责任。
Lastly and as mentioned, the above case study is not an uncommon situation. The prudent litigator should understand the modus operandi of the fraudulent director and the possible legal protections he would afford himself. Given so, the litigator should press for, if appropriate based on the evidence, personal liability of the director as available under the Australian legal framework.