Expansion of Applicable Sphere: A way to Uniformity
——Compare and Contrast between UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL Conventions
By Dongsheng Lu, Chen Yan

I. Introduction

Financing is paramount for the promotion of commerce. It has been noted that “in developed countries the bulk of corporate wealth is locked up in receivables”. As the economy develops, this wealth increasing is “unlocked by transferring receivables across national borders”. With the prompt and great increases in international trade, receivables financing now plays a more and more important role. Yet under the law of many countries, certain forms of receivables financing are still not recognized. Even transactions are involved in countries where the form of receivables financing is permitted, determining which law governs will be difficult. The disparity among laws of different jurisdiction increases uncertainty in transactions, thus constitutes obstacles to the development of assignments of receivables. To remove such obstacles arising from the uncertainty existing in various legal systems and promote the development of receivables financing cross-boarder, a set of uniform rules in this field is required. The international community has made great efforts in adopting uniform laws. Among those efforts, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) drafted, on 12 December, 2001, “United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNCITRAL Convention”), with its aim to “establish principles and to adopt rules relating to the assignment of receivables that would create certainty and transparency and promote the modernization of the law relating to assignments of receivables”. UNCITRAL is not the first international organization attempting to resolve the problems associated with receivables. As early as in May 1988, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) has already adopted a convention known as the “UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNIDROIT Convention”).

When compare and contrast between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, one might see a lot of inconsistency in detailed regulations, e.g. sphere of application, relations between parties, priorities, and choice of law, etc. Given the limited space available in this article, the author may only focus on the difference in “sphere of application” of these two conventions, as sphere of application is perhaps the most fundamental issue of a convention.

The purpose of an international convention is to create uniformity in its covered matter, thus the broader a convention’s sphere of application is, the higher could uniformity reach. This article will try to make compare and contrast the sphere of application between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, illustrate the differences exist between these two conventions, and demonstrate the expansion of sphere of application in the UNCITRAL Convention and its progress on the way to uniformity.

II. Sphere of Application: Subject Matter

As its title indicates, the subject matter of the UNIDROIT Convention is of course international factoring. Article 1(1) says, “this Convention governs factoring contracts and assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter.”

For “factoring contract”, the UNIDROIT Convention provides the following 4 characteristics:

(1) purpose of the contract is to assign receivables;

(2) receivables to be assigned arises from contracts of sale of goods made between the supplier and its customers (debtors), other than those of sale of goods bought primarily for personal, family or household use;

(3) the factor is to perform at least two of the four functions: (i) finance for the supplier; (ii) maintenance of accounts (ledgering) relating to the receivables; (iii) collection of receivables; and (iv) protection against default in payment by debtors;

(4) notice of the assignment of the receivables is to be given to debtors.

As about “assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter”, article 2 (1) describes assignments of receivables as assignment of receivables pursuant to a factoring contract.

Factoring is just a subset of the receivables financing, and perhaps the oldest and most basic one. Besides factoring, receivables financing still entail the following forms,

(1) Forfeiting, similar to factoring, involves the purchase or discounting of documentary receivables (promissory notes, for example) without recourse to the party from whom the receivables are purchased;

(2) Refinancing, also known as secondary financing, involves the subsequent assignment of receivables. In its basic form, one bank or financier will assign to another bank its interest, with the potential for further assignment;

(3) Securitization, in which both marketable (for example, trade receivables) and non-marketable (consumer credit card receivables) asset cash flows are repackaged by a lender and transferred to a lender-controlled company, which will issue securities, sell and then use the proceeds to purchase the receivables;

(4) Project Finance, in which repayment of loans made by banks or financiers to project contractors for the financing of projects are secured through the future revenues of the project.

The first draft of the UNCITRAL Convention has stated to cover factoring, forfeiting, refinancing, securitization and project finance. Somehow, the working group decides that rather than emphasize the form in which the receivables appear, it would instead concentrate on the way in which the receivables might be transferred (contractual or non-contractual) and the purpose of the transaction (for financing or non-financing purposes). It decides the contractual receivables and assignment made to secure financing and other related services would be covered. The non-contractual receivables such as insurance and tort receivables, deposit bank accounts, or claims arising by operation of law seems are not within the ambits of the UNCITRAL convention.

III. Sphere of Application: Special Requirements

Both of the conventions contain a series of requirements. Only when those requirements are satisfied, could the convention be applied. The higher and stricter the requirements are, the smaller the chance to apply the convention is.

a) Internationality requirement

Both the two conventions indicate their sphere of application is of internationality requirement, but the same word in these two conventions has different legal meaning. The internationality requirement of UNIDROIT Convention is exclusively based upon the parties to the underlying contract, i.e. the contract of sale of goods (the supplier and the debtor) having their place of business in different countries. In other words, where the receivables arise from a contract of sale of goods between a supplier and a debtor whose places of business are in the same State, the UNIDROIT Convention could not apply, no matter the following assignment of receivables is to assignee in the same or different State. Thus leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables untouched. The problem, at its simplest, is twofold: first, inconsistency. For instance, in the case where a bulk assignment is made and where part of the receivables are domestic (supplier and debtor are in the same State) and part are international (supplier and debtor are in different State), if the supplier assigns the receivables to a party which is located in another State, the bulk assignment between the same supplier and the same assignee will be governed by two sets of laws and regulations: the portion of international receivables may be governed by the UNIDROIT Convention while the domestic one will be left to the jurisdiction of certain domestic law.

Secondly, leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables to the jurisdiction of various law systems of different States can make “commercial practice uncertain, time-consuming and expensive”. The assignee of receivables from a foreign State may not know which State’s law governs the transaction, and, if the law of the assignor’s State applies, the assignee’s rights would be subject to the vagaries of that foreign law. This no doubt would greatly impede the development of such transaction.

浅谈渎检工作如何服务构建和谐社会

蔡仕强


构建和谐社会是全面建设小康社会的重要内容。当前，滥用职权、玩忽职守、徇私舞弊等人民群众十分关注的渎职侵权现象时有发生，这在一定程度上阻碍了和谐社会的建设，加大惩治与预防渎职侵权犯罪工作力度正是检察机关为构建和谐社会服务的重要举措。但是，由于种种原因，渎检工作的开展不尽人意，长期处于低迷状态。渎检工作如何想方设法走出困境，更好地为构建和谐社会服务，是摆在检察机关面前的重要课题。本文拟通过分析当前渎检工作存在的问题及其原因，对如何加强渎检工作，为构建和谐社会服务谈点浅见。

一、当前渎职侵权检察工作遇到的主要问题

渎检工作一度面临被合并即被取消的尴尬境地。究其原因，笔者认为，主要是渎检工作在开展过程中存在“四难”现象，长期打不开局面：

1、线索发现难。坚持以人为本，树立科学发展观是社会发展的基石。渎检工作的职责是强化法律监督，维护公平正义，在依法治国、保障人权等方面发挥重要作用。但是，渎职侵权犯罪案件线索来源狭窄，渠道不畅，线索不足，成为制约渎检工作开展的主要问题。人民群众向检察机关反映有关渎职侵权犯罪方面的情况相当之少，主动上门提供线索的更是少之又少。渎职侵权检察部门寻找案源的主要途径是在一些重大事故发生后才上门查案，具有较大的偶然性，缺乏稳定性，“等米下锅”，甚至出现长期“无米下锅”的情况。

2、调查取证难。渎职侵权犯罪主体大多是具有较高文化素质和活动能力的国家机关工作人员，犯罪手段具有多样性、隐蔽性、智能性的特点，反侦查能力较强。而且这些人关系网厚，尤其是一些领导干部具有一定的影响力，易订立攻守同盟，转移侦查视线，涉案的当事人也不会轻易谈及案情，这些都为渎检部门的查证工作增加了不少难度，稍有不慎，会功亏一篑，造成负面影响。加上有的检察院侦查人员缺乏，办案装备落后，办案经费拮据，对一些经费投入大的查证工作半途而废，不了了之，最终出现“雷声大，雨点小”的情况。

3、案件处理难。渎职侵权案件涉及面广，案情复杂，所以在案件处理过程中，渎检部门不同程度地会碰到以各种理由说情、施压、拆台等现象，有的查到一半就被叫停了，有的已侦结，但得不到应有的处理。犯罪嫌疑人或被不诉，或被判缓刑，在案件处理上普遍存在从宽现象，犯罪嫌疑人被移送起诉的为数极少。办案工作“只开花不结果”，或处理结果“轻描淡写”，检察机关在案件处理过程中往往处于力不从心的状态。

4、法律把握难。修订后的刑法对渎职、侵权犯罪作出规定，重新规定了渎职侵权检察的受案范围。但是，部分条文用语较为模糊，缺乏可操作性，有关的司法解释相对滞后，造成渎检部门对一些技术性较强的案件或者新罪名的案件 查处工作带来一定的困难。如环境监管失职罪、传染病防治失职罪、商检失职罪等涉及的技术性较强；滥用管理、证券职权罪、徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪等新罪名没有经验可以借鉴，难以把握。这些都需要在实践中不断摸索，而司法解释在这些方面涉及较少，检察机关碰到这类案件，束手无策，无可奈何。

二、影响渎检工作发挥职能作用的主要原因

渎检工作在构建和谐社会过程中出现的不和谐“音符”，有其主客观原因，也有工作中的问题。笔者认为至少有以下几个方面的原因：

1、思想认识有偏差。由于渎职侵权犯罪大多数是过失犯罪，而且多数是为公事所致，这就容易给人造成一种假象，有的认为“决策失误不为罪”、“为公监权不犯法”、“改革开放难免交学费”；由于犯罪主体特殊，有的办案人员存在畏难情绪，怕得罪人，认为查办渎职侵权犯罪是“费力不讨好”等等。思想认识上同渎职侵权犯罪的严峻斗争形势形成反差，对渎职侵权犯罪的危害性、严重性缺乏深刻的认识和高度的警觉，没有把查办失职渎职、滥用职权、执法犯罪等渎职侵权犯罪作为强化法律监督，服务构建和谐社会的急迫任务而纳入反腐败斗争的总体格局，摆到突出位置。

2、工作方式欠妥当。现实中，一些检察机关的渎检部门不善于充分依靠和发动群众，对人民群众的强烈呼声闭目塞责，坐等观望，精神不振或怨天尤人。一是坐等案源上门，有案源来了就查，无案源来就等待观望，对案源情况缺乏调查研究和量化分析，对积极寻找案源和拓宽案源渠道工作没有动脑筋、想办法，或者对发生在身边的案件线索缺乏敏感性，视而不见。二是同相关部门移送案件线索的渠道不畅，缺乏与有关部门的沟通联系，案件信息传导系统梗塞，在最容易产生并事实上存在案源的地方反而无所作为，任其自生自灭，导致案源的流失。此外，当前渎检干警在人员数量方面比例较低，而且在人员配置上，只有少数检察院将有侦查经验的骨干配置到渎检部门，新手多、骨干少，人员不足，难以有效开展工作。加上后勤保障不够，办案经费不足，光靠一支笔、一张纸的落后手段办案，渎检工作的开展难度可想而知。

3、执法环境不和谐。一些地区、一些单位领导法治观念淡薄，保护主义思想严重，从本地区、本部门的利益出发，不希望“家丑外扬”，对渎职侵权部门的查处工作不支持，不配合，消极对待，出了问题怕影响“形象”，影响“政绩”，所以瞒案不报、压案不查，该移送不移送，甚至设置“障碍”，阻挠查处，造成检察机关立案难、取证难、处理难。执法环境不和谐导致有的检察机关慑于阻力，对党政机关、行政执法机关、司法机关和经济管理部门的失职渎职、滥用职权犯罪案件及大案要案抓得不够有力，或者久拖不侦，久侦不结，严重影响反腐败斗争的进程。

4、法律规定有缺陷。法律规定上存在空隙是渎检工作开展不力的法制原因。一是我国修订后的刑法对渎职犯罪的主体局限在国家机关工作人员（泄露国家秘密罪唯一例外），使渎职犯罪的其他国家工作人员或者具有国家机关工作人员和国家工作人员两种主体身份的人而不受法律追究。二是处罚规定畸轻。我国现行刑法对渎职罪规定的最高刑期大多数为7年，少数情节特别严重的在10年以下，极个别处10年以上有期徒刑，而渎职犯罪给国家和人民生命财产造成的损失和后果往往比其他经济犯罪严重得多，这往往使一些渎职犯罪案件大案化小、小案化了。

三、如何发挥渎检职能，服务构建和谐社会的几点建议

十六届四中全会提出了构建和谐社会的理念，对民主执政、科学执政、促进公正司法和依法行政、尊重保障人权提出了新的更高要求。渎检工作面临着前所未有的大好机遇，大有可为。笔者认为，应从如下几方面加强渎检工作：

首先，要认清形势，统一思想。各级党委、政府和司法机关要消除“渎职犯罪情有可原”的错误思想，充分认识渎职侵权犯罪是腐败现象的突出表现形式之一。它严重危害社会主义市场经济秩序的建立和完善，阻碍构建和谐社会、全面建设小康社会的进程，破坏党群关系、干群关系和稳定的大局，损害党和政府的形象，渎职侵权犯罪在政治上造成影响，其社会危害性决不亚于贪污贿赂犯罪，有的甚至有过之而不及。因此，当前解决惩治和预防渎职侵权力度不够、效果不佳、失之以宽、失之以软的关键是提高认识，统一思想。各级党委和政府要大力支持检察机关依法查办渎职侵权案件；检察机关要增强责任感和使命感，加大查办渎职侵权犯罪的力度。

第二、要加强宣传，提高知名度。渎职侵权检察前身是法纪检察，设立时间不短，但在相当部分群众中仍感陌生。不少群众还将国家机关工作人员在执行公务中的违法行为视为正常现象，有的明知是违法行为，但认为“官官相护”，控告也枉然。因此，努力让广大人民群众认识渎检工作，了解渎检工作，增强公民的法律意识，是当前渎检部门需要下大力气要做的一项工作。渎检部门应把握时机，通过新闻媒介进行形式多样的宣传报道，适当开展法律咨询活动，使干部群众掌握渎职侵权检察的性质、职能、受案范围、管辖罪名等知识，运用法律武器，举报国家机关工作人员侵权渎职、玩忽职守、刑讯逼供等违法行为，推动民主和法制建设的发展。

第三、要拓宽渠道，发掘案源。随着社会的发展，犯罪分子的犯罪手段越来越多样化，更具隐蔽性。墨守成规和坐等举报发现案件线索的方式已经不能满足打击犯罪的形势需要。因此，除了广泛动员群众举报，我们要采取主动走出去的方法，摸查有关案件信息，“找米下锅”：一是从社会接触中收集犯罪线索。侦查人员与社会的日常接触中要善于“眼观六路，耳听八方”，捕捉有价值的渎职犯罪线索。二是注意从新闻媒体，特别是新闻媒体报道的各种重大责任事故和重大案件中，追根求源，发现有关职能部门人员渎职犯罪的线索。三是从社会热点问题收集犯罪案件信息，在社会转型阶段，社会热点问题层出不穷，工程发包、土地征用转让、证券市场、国有企业转制等都是群众关注的焦点，也是渎职犯罪的高发区。侦查人员要有敏锐意识，经常深入这些行业收集发现线索。四是加强同纪检监察部门、审计部门和检察机关内部其他业务部门的联系，争取他们多移交案件线索。

第四、要突出重点，加大打击力度。检察机关要坚持把渎职检察工作的位置前移，纳入反腐败斗争的总体格局，做到领导重视，在装备、经费和人员配置等方面给予必要的保障和一定的倾斜。渎检部门要树立威信，归根到底要抓办案。当前，全国检察机关正在开展集中查办破坏社会主义市场经济秩序渎职犯罪专项工作。这次专项工作查办的重点案件分为三大类：一是国家机关工作人渎职失职导致严重扰乱社会主义市场经济秩序，造成重大经济损失的犯罪案件。二是负有市场监管的国家机关工作人员渎职失职、徇私舞弊案件。三是司法机关、行政机关工作人员渎职失职、徇私枉法，破坏市场经济秩序的犯罪案件。渎检部门，特别是一些立案空白的地区要突出重点，瞄准三类犯罪，加大打击力度，服务构建和谐社会，创造一个和谐、有序的社会主义市场经济秩序。

第五、要机构升格，科学设置。目前，高检院和部分省、市已将渎检部门更名为反渎职侵权局，这是适应形势发展的需要。笔者认为，应该加大这方面工作的力度。检察机关干部查处渎职侵权方面一直相当薄弱，影响了检察机关职能作用的全面发挥。这其中，检察机关渎职犯罪侦查机构设置不科学，名称不统一，力量配备一再弱化是直接的主要原因。所以说，渎职侵权犯罪侦查机构更名为反渎职侵权局，更能体现职责、名称的一致，更具合法性，更便于人们的理解，适应构建社会主义和谐社会的需要，也是顺应广大群众和社会各界的强烈要求，势在必行。另外，针对当前法律规定上的漏洞，建议国家立法机关尽快做好刑法等法律的修改、补充、完善和司法解释工作，使立法工作适应当前渎检工作不断发展的新情况，充分发挥法律在预防和减少渎职侵权犯罪中的效能作用。

第六、要以人为本，提高素质。要拓展检察机关渎职侵权检察工作，提高渎职侵权检察人员的素质是关键。目前，渎职侵权检察队伍中，人员素质不平衡，新成份多，相当部分未经培训上岗，业务素质不高。而渎职侵权工作涉及知识领域广、部门多、法律、法规专业性强，对干警的业务素质要求特殊。因此，要在坚持个人自学的基础上，有计划、有组织地分期分批进行培训，组织干警深入学习，开展岗位练兵，掌握渎职侵权检察工作必备的法律法规和相关专业知识。同时，要加强渎检干警的职业道德教育。渎职侵权检察部门的干警在工作开展过程中应该严格执法，依法监督，坚持忠于职守，秉公执法，讲原则不讲关系，讲法律不讲人情，提高自身防腐拒变的能力，切实使检察队伍在总体素质上有新的提高，增强综合作战能力，以适应新形势新任务的要求。



通讯地址：广东省五华县人民检察院　邮政编码：514400