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.

山东省淄博市人大常委会


淄博市人民代表大会常务委员会公告【十四届】第3号



　　《淄博市人民代表大会常务委员会关于修改<淄博市土地监察条例>等六件地方性法规的决定》已由淄博市第十四届人民代表大会常务委员会第二次会议于2012年6月28日通过,并经山东省第十一届人民代表大会常务委员会第三十二次会议批准，现予公布，自公布之日起施行。
　　　　
淄博市人民代表大会常务委员会
2012年8月2日




淄博市烟草专卖管理办法


2005年12月21日淄博市第十二届人民代表大会常务委员会第二十一次会议通过　2006年3月30日山东省第十届人
民代表大会常务委员会第十九次会议批准　2006年4月3日淄博市人民代表大会常务委员会公告公布　
根据2012年6月28日淄博市第十四届人民代表大会常务委员会第二次会议通过并经2012年8月1日山东省第十一届
人民代表大会常务委员会第三十二次会议批准的《淄博市人民代表大会常务委员会关于修改<淄博市土地监察条例>等六件地方性法规的决定》修正



　　第一条　为了加强烟草专卖管理，规范烟草专卖品的生产、经营行为，维护消费者的合法权益，根据《中华人民共和国烟草专卖法》及其实施条例，结合本市实际，制定本办法。
　　第二条　本市行政区域内烟草专卖品的生产、经营、储存、运输及其管理，适用本办法。
　　第三条　本办法所称烟草专卖品，是指卷烟、雪茄烟、烟丝、复烤烟叶、烟叶、卷烟纸、滤嘴棒、烟用丝束、烟草专用机械。
　　卷烟、雪茄烟、烟丝、复烤烟叶统称为烟草制品。
　　第四条　市、区县烟草专卖行政主管部门负责本行政区域内的烟草专卖管理工作。
　　公安、海关、工商、质量技术监督、交通等部门应当按照各自职责，做好烟草专卖管理的相关工作。
　　第五条　禁止向未成年人销售烟草制品。
　　第六条　生产烟草专卖品，应当依法申请烟草专卖生产企业许可证。未经批准，任何单位和个人不得生产烟草专卖品。
　　第七条　批发烟草制品，应当依法申请烟草专卖批发企业许可证。未经批准，任何单位和个人不得从事烟草制品批发业务。
　　烟草专卖批发企业批发的卷烟、雪茄烟应当标注烟草专卖行政主管部门规定的专卖标识。
　　第八条 零售烟草制品，应当依法取得烟草专卖零售许可证。未取得烟草专卖零售许可证的，不得从事烟草制品零售业务。
申请烟草专卖零售许可证，应当向所在区县烟草专卖行政主管部门提出。申请材料齐全，符合法定形式的，烟草专卖行政主管部门应当予以受理，自受理申请之日起十五日内，作出许可或者不予许可的书面决定。需要延长期限的，经烟草专卖行政主管部门负责人批准，可以延长七日，并将延长期限的理由书面告知申请人。
　　第九条　取得烟草专卖零售许可证，应当具备下列条件：
　　（一）有与经营烟草制品零售业务相适应的资金；
　　（二）有固定的经营场所；
　　（三）符合烟草制品零售点合理布局的要求；
　　（四）国务院烟草专卖行政主管部门规定的其他条件。
　　第十条　区县烟草专卖行政主管部门应当根据人口、交通等实际情况，合理布局烟草制品零售点。
　　第十一条　取得烟草专卖零售许可证的单位和个人，应当按照规定的经营范围和地点从事烟草制品的零售业务；应当从当地烟草专卖批发企业进货，并接受烟草专卖行政主管部门的监督检查。烟草专卖零售许可证应当予以明示。
　　第十二条　取得烟草专卖零售许可证的单位和个人停业的，应当到发证机关办理停业手续，交回烟草专卖零售许可证。停业六个月以上或者无正当理由六个月以上未从烟草专卖批发企业批发烟草制品的，烟草专卖行政主管部门注销其烟草专卖零售许可证。
　　第十三条　禁止下列行为：
　　（一）伪造、涂改、倒卖、出租、出借或者以其他形式转让烟草专卖许可证；
　　（二）经营、储存、运输无专卖标识（有合法证明的储存、运输除外）或者假冒专卖标识的卷烟、雪茄烟;
　　（三）非法收购、销售烟丝、烟叶、复烤烟叶；
　　（四）经营、储存、运输走私卷烟、雪茄烟或者假冒伪劣烟草制品；
　　（五）为非法经营烟草制品活动提供储存、运输等便利条件；
　　（六）其他违反法律、法规的行为。
　　第十四条　烟草专卖行政主管部门在自行或者会同有关部门查处涉烟违法案件时，可以对烟草专卖品的生产、经营、储存场所和运输工具进行烟草专卖检查，也可以在车站、浮桥、收费站、货运站进行烟草专卖检查。
　　第十五条　烟草专卖行政主管部门的专卖检查人员进行烟草专卖检查时不得少于两人，并应当出示检查证件。未出示的，当事人有权拒绝检查。
　　第十六条 烟草专卖行政主管部门在查处涉烟违法案件时，可以查阅、复制有关合同、凭证等资料；对可能灭失或者以后难以取得的证据，可以依法先行登记保存，并应当在七日内作出处理决定。
　　对依法登记保存的烟草专卖品，烟草专卖行政主管部门应当妥善保管，不得使用、私分、变卖或者损毁。
　　第十七条　烟草专卖行政主管部门对依法登记保存的烟草专卖品，当事人无正当理由，经两次书面通知或者自公告通知之日起满六十日仍不接受调查处理的，可以依法予以没收。
　　第十八条 烟草专卖行政主管部门和有关部门依法没收的假冒伪劣、霉坏变质的烟草制品，应当由烟草专卖行政主管部门按照国家有关规定公开销毁。
　　依法没收的其他烟草专卖品应当公开拍卖或者交由指定的烟草公司按照国家规定价格收购，所得款项由没收部门上缴国库。
　　第十九条 涉嫌假冒伪劣的烟草制品，易于认定，且当事人没有异议的，烟草专卖行政主管部门按照假冒伪劣烟草制品处理。
　　第二十条　单位和个人举报涉烟违法行为，经查证属实的，烟草专卖行政主管部门应当予以奖励。
　　第二十一条　违反本办法规定，有下列行为之一的，由烟草专卖行政主管部门或者工商行政管理部门按照下列规定予以处罚；构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任：
　　（一）不在规定地点从事烟草制品零售业务的，责令改正，处以五十元以上二百元以下罚款；
（二）涂改、倒卖、出租、出借或者以其他形式转让烟草专卖零售许可证的，没收违法所得，并处一百元以上三百元以下罚款；
（三）未依法取得或者使用过期、失效烟草专卖零售许可证从事烟草制品零售业务的，没收涉案烟草制品及违法所得，并处违法经营总额百分之二十以上百分之五十以下的罚款；违法经营总额无法确定的，处以三百元以上五百元以下罚款；
　　（四）经营、储存无专卖标识、假冒专卖标识的卷烟、雪茄烟或者非法收购、销售烟丝、烟叶、复烤烟叶的，没收涉案烟草制品及违法所得，并处涉案烟草制品价值百分之五十的罚款；涉案烟草制品价值无法确定的，处以一千元以上三千元以下罚款；
　　（五）经营、储存走私卷烟、雪茄烟的，没收涉案烟草制品及违法所得，并处涉案烟草制品价值两倍的罚款；
（六）经营、储存假冒伪劣烟草制品的，责令停止违法行为，没收涉案烟草制品及违法所得，并处违法经营总额百分之二十以上百分之五十以下的罚款；
（七）承运人明知是烟草专卖品而为无准运证的单位和个人运输的，没收违法所得，处以违法运输烟草制品价值百分之十五的罚款；
（八）无烟草专卖生产企业许可证生产烟草专卖品的，责令关闭，没收违法所得，处以所生产烟草专卖品价值一倍的罚款，并将其违法生产的烟草专卖品公开销毁。
违反前款第（二）项、第（四）项、第（五）项、第（六）项规定，情节严重的，吊销烟草专卖零售许可证。
　　第二十二条 违反本办法规定，烟草专卖行政主管部门和其他行政部门的工作人员有下列行为之一的，依法给予行政处分；构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任：
（一）不符合许可条件给予许可或者超越职权许可的；
（二）发现违法行为不依法予以查处的；
（三）索贿、受贿或者接受可能影响公正执行职务的不当利益的；
（四）其他滥用职权、徇私舞弊、玩忽职守的行为。
第二十三条　当事人认为行政机关的具体行政行为侵犯其合法权益的，可以依法申请行政复议或者提起行政诉讼。
第二十四条　本办法自2006年5 月1日起施行。