China Law Insight : China Law Insight: China Commercial and Intellectual Property Lawyers and Attorneys, Full Service Law Firm: King & Wood

The SAFE has issued a series of circulars concerning round-tripping investments by SPVs since 2005. On October 21, 2005, the SAFE issued the Circular of the SAFE on Relevant Issues Concerning Foreign Exchange Administration for Financing and Round-Trip Investment Undertaken by Domestic Residents Through Overseas Special-Purpose Vehicles(2)("Circular 75"). Then, the General Affairs Department of the SAFE issued a number of circulars in 2005, 2007 and 2009 respectively, including the Circular of the General Affairs Department of the SAFE on Issuing the Operating Rules of the "Circular of the SAFE Concerning Improvement of Administration of Foreign Debt" and the "Circular of the SAFE on the Relevant Issues Concerning Foreign Exchange Administration for Financing and Round-Tripping Investment Undertaken by Domestic Residents through Overseas Special-Purpose Vehicles"(3)("Circular 124"),the Circular of the General Affairs Department of the SAFE on Printing and Distributing the Operating Rules of the "Circular of the SAFE on Relevant Issues Concerning Foreign Exchange Administration for Financing and Round-Tripping Investment Undertaken by Domestic Residents through Overseas Special-Purpose Vehicles" (4)( "Circular 106") and the Circular of the General Affairs Department of the SAFE on Printing and Distributing the Operating Rules of the "Circular of the SAFE on Foreign Exchange Administration for Capital Account 2009"(5) ("Circular 77"，with Circular 124 and Circular 106 collectively referred to as the "Old Operating Rules"). At present, foreign exchange regulations concerning financing and round-tripping investments undertaken by domestic residents through offshore SPVs are mainly governed by Circular 77.

The newly-published Circular 19 is an update and expansion of Circular 75 and the Old Operating Rules. It states that if any conflict arises between Circular 19 and the existing effective Circular 77, Circular 19 shall prevail. Circular 19, to a certain extent, reflects the trend of the SAFE gradually opening up and simplifying procedures for the foreign exchange administration of capital accounts.

This article aims to explore the trends in foreign exchange administration and regulatory guidelines provided by Circular 19 on dealing with issues arising under Circular 75, by comparing the New Operating Rules and the Old Operating Rules. Our analysis will draw on our previous experiences of dealing with the Sichuan Branch of the SAFE (Local SAFE).

II. Main Differences Between the New Operating Rules and Old Operating Rules

A. Foreign Exchange Registration for the Establishment of SPVs

a. Approval process and standards

According to Circular 77, when setting up an SPV, a letter of business plan regarding offshore financing must be submitted to the SAFE. The letter must include seven elements: (a) basic introduction to the actual controller and management; (b) legal arrangement and feasibility analysis for the procedure, control methods and follow-up financing for transferring the domestic assets of a domestic resident to the control of SPVs, illustrating the investment relationship between the domestic resident, domestic enterprise controlled by the resident and the proposed SPVs; (c) shareholding proportion of each domestic resident in the SPV (staff shareholding plan and management option incentive plan shall be disclosed, if any); (d) basic introduction to the planned financing methods, financing amount and offshore financing institutions, illustrating financing intention and memorandum of agreement with offshore financing institutions; (e) illustration of the plan to use offshore financing funds; (f) the development history of the industry of the domestic enterprise, the most recent 3 years financial status (the financial status since the establishment of the domestic enterprise shall be illustrated if such domestic enterprise has not been established for a full 3 years); (g) market prospects, market development strategies, development planning, financial forecast, and market risk analysis of the domestic enterprise.

The approval process of the SAFE is intended to focus on the reasonableness, feasibility and consistency of the financing methods, scale, conditions, capital repatriation arrangement and method mentioned in the letter of business plan regarding offshore financing. Under Circular 77, the approval process concerning the establishment of SPVs undertaken by the SAFE is substantive, and our previous relevant experience is consistent with this.

According to Circular 19, a resolution of the board of the domestic enterprise or a written statement by an individual which approves the offshore financing must be submitted to the SAFE for the establishment of a SPV. However, the letter of business plan regarding offshore financing and the items required to be listed in the aforementioned letter under Circular 77 are no longer required in Circular 19. Furthermore, examination of the commercial reasonability and feasibility is also no longer required under Circular 19. We tend to believe that, Circular 19 has simplified the SAFE approval process for the establishment of SPVs.

b. Registration

Both Circular 19 and Circular 77 provide that an SPV can be established prior to the initial registration with the SAFE. However, material changes on capital or equity by way of offshore financing, change of the shareholding structure or round-trip investment are not permitted prior to the completion of SAFE registration. In short, the application to the SAFE for registration must be made before any material change to capital or equity of the offshore SPVs is made. Rules concerning retrospective registration shall be applied if material capital or equity modifications are made before the initial application to register the SPV with the SAFE.

Pursuant to Circular 77, one precondition of the initial SAFE registration of SPVs is that the domestic enterprises and domestic natural persons must have definite financing intentions and have executed memoranda of offshore financing institutions. In our experience, the local SAFE may still accept applications for the initial registration of SPVs even if no memoranda on offshore financing are executed, or even if an offshore financing institution has not been ascertained, if the SAFE believes there is an urgent need for accepting the application. Under Circular 19, this precondition has been deleted.

We consider that, under Circular 19, an application of initial registration of SPVs could be accepted for the initial registration of an SPV prior to reaching definite financing intentions and execution of memoranda between the domestic enterprises and/or persons and offshore financing institutions. This change will enrich financing models and make offshore financing more flexible.

B. SAFE Registration of the Establishment of a SPV with Acquisition of a Domestic Enterprise

a. Injection of domestic assets

On August 8, 2006, six PRC governmental and regulatory authorities, including Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") and SAFE, jointly promulgated the Regulations on the Acquisition of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors ("Acquisition Regulation")(6). Under the Acquisition Regulation, MOFCOM approval is required if any domestic enterprise merges its affiliated domestic company in the name of a company legally established or controlled by the aforesaid party in a foreign country or region. In a situation where a domestic resident (including an enterprise or person) establishes under Circular 75 an offshore SPV and conducts a reverse acquisition of domestic companies owned by the domestic resident via the offshore SPV, the Acquisition Regulation shall govern. In short, the party shall obtain the MOFCOM approval.As we know, many domestic enterprises with plans to conduct an offshore IPO at that hoped to obtain an acquisition approval from the local MOFCOM branches before the Acquisition Regulation came into effect in order to avoid the uncertainty of obtaining the MOFCOM approval after the effectiveness of acquisition regulation. Therefore, the time when the domestic assets were injected into the offshore SPV became a key point. The governing Circular 124 did not provide clear provisions regarding the time of injection of domestic assets into an offshore SPV before the promulgation of Circular 106. Thus, prior to May 2007, the MOFCOM approval to the acquisition of an offshore company by a domestic company was generally deemed as a condition of recognizing the injection of domestic assets into the offshore SPV. However, Circular 106 and Circular 77 promulgated later stipulate the completion of SAFE registration of a domestic enterprise to be the time of asset injection.

Circular 19 is silent on the above issue. Whether the SAFE recognizes that the time of injection of domestic assets into an offshore SPV is the date of MOFCOM acquisition approval needs further clarification from the SAFE.

b. 3-year consecutive operation requirement

Both Circular 106 and Circular 77 provided that "… if a foreign investor which is an offshore enterprise, has completed the SAFE registration concerning overseas investment, but does not operate in compliance with the permitted business scope for three consecutive years, the application of such foreign investor for SAFE registration regarding its establishment or acquisition of domestic enterprises shall not be accepted." In our experience, when Circulars 106 and 77 were effective, the 3-year consecutive operation requirement was not strictly implemented by the local SAFE in practice and there is no provision in Circular 19 in this regard. We therefore consider that there is probably no longer a requirement to have maintained the business for three consecutive years.

c. SAFE registration of equity acquisition

Pursuant to the Acquisition Regulation, if the MOFCOM approves a foreign investor to acquire a domestic company by equity merger, the foreign exchange administrative authority shall issue a foreign exchange registration certificate to the domestic company which indicates that the certificate shall be "valid for eight months from its issuance". If the MOFCOM approves a special purpose company(7) to acquiring a domestic company by equity merger, the foreign exchange administrative authority's certificate shall be "valid for fourteen months from its issuance".

As to a foreign investor's equity merger with a domestic company, Circulars 106 and 77 only generally state that the wording of the foreign exchange registration certificate given to the domestic company must be consistent with the wording of the approval certificate for the establishment of a foreign investment enterprise and its business license. Under Circular 19, the rules covering the SAFE registration of a foreign investor's acquisition of a domestic company by equity merger are different from those governing an SPV's acquisition of a domestic company by equity merger. Circular 19 contains a detailed distinction between these two kinds of mergers. For equity merger by foreign investors with a domestic company, Circular 19 provides that before a foreign exchange registration certificate is cancelled, the foreign exchange payments made by the domestic company will be restricted.For example, the domestic company shall not pay dividends, or provide security guarantees for its related companies or make any foreign exchange payments on capital account by equity transfer, capital reduction, liquidation.

The New Operating Rules are more consistent with the Acquisition Rules, and are clearer and more explicit to avoid any confusion.

C. Retrospective Registration of SPV's Round-tripping Investment

a. Punishment before retrospective registration

Pursuant to Circular 106, a written application was required to be submitted for the retrospective registration of an SPV's round-trip investment. The background information about the domestic enterprise and actual controller, the shareholding structure of offshore SPVs, the offshore financing and round-trip investment of the SPV must be clearly stated in the application. The SAFE was mainly concerned with whether the domestic enterprise had paid to the SPV any profits, dividends, liquidation dividends, transfers of equity, capital reduction proceeds, principal and interest on shareholder loans, etc ("Foreign Exchange Payment") when such application is examined. If a foreign exchange payment occurred, the retrospective registration will only be permitted after the foreign exchange evasion of the domestic enterprise and its actual controllers are investigated and dealt with. If the actual controller fraudulently obtained foreign exchange registration by providing false statement when an SPV merged with a domestic enterprise, then retrospective registration shall only be permitted after the fraudulent act is punished.

The principle of "punishment before retrospective registration" was firstly set out in Circular 106, but the later issued Circular 77 did not provide relevant operating rules concerning retrospective registration of SPVs. Therefore, during the intervening period between the promulgation of the Circular 77 and the Operating Guidance on the Circular of the SAFE on Relevant Issues concerning Strengthening the Administration of the Foreign Exchange Business(8)("Operating Guidance of Circular 59") on November 22, 2010 which restated the principle of punishment before retrospective registration, there was no unanimous view and practice among different levels of foreign exchange administrative authorities on the enforceability and operation of the retrospective registration of the SPV. The process of retrospective registration was filled with uncertainty.

Circular 19 reconfirms the principle of "punishment before retrospective registration". Furthermore, Circular 19 introduces two more examination elements in addition to the examination of the foreign exchange payment history of the domestic company required by Circular 106. The two new elements are: (1) whether there was a material change of capital or equity in the offshore SPV before the retrospective registration; and (2) whether there was a fraudulent act in the application for the foreign exchange registration conducted by the foreign-invested enterprise which was established through round-trip investment.

We think that Circular 19 confirms the feasibility of obtaining a retrospective registration, at the same time it strengthens the examination towards possible illegal conduct by the actual controllers in respect of compliance of the relevant foreign exchange laws and regulations. In addition, penalizing such conduct is emphasized.

b. Special audit report

Based on our previous experience, when Circular 106 was effective, during the process of granting retrospective registration, the investigation of the existence of offshore foreign exchange payments by the domestic enterprise existed was mainly dependent on the written undertaking of the domestic natural person. Pursuant to Operating Guidance of Circular 59, a special audit report issued by a professional audit institution shall be submitted. Circular 19 restates this requirement. We tend to believe that SAFE has enhanced the examination of offshore foreign exchange payments to check for foreign exchange evasion.

D. Round-trip Investment of Non-SPVs

a. Definition of a non-SPV

Compared with the Old Operating Rules, Circular 19 puts forward a new concept, namely, the non-SPV, but does not provide a definition of a non-SPV. Based on the definition of a SPV in Circular 75(9), we consider that a SPV should meet two requirements concurrently: first, it must conduct financing activity by equity transfer; second, the equity financing must be based upon the domestic assets or interests. In practice, it should be noted that, in practice, under the presently effective Circular 77, the local SAFE has a broader understanding of the definition of a SPV.In practice SPVs have often successfully obtained the foreign exchange registration even though they did not meet the strict definition of a SPV.

Accordingly, we consider that, non-SPVs referred to in Circular 19 mean offshore companies which do not simultaneously satisfy the two requirements of SPVs. This understanding, however, does not rule out the possibility that different levels of foreign exchange administrative authorities will interpret it differently.

b. The approval process for round-trip investment of non-SPVs

Circular 19 does not require a non-SPV offshore enterprise to obtain foreign exchange registration for a round-trip investment as would be required by a SPV. The domestic enterprise controlled by such offshore enterprise will be identified as "round-trip investment of non-SPV" by local SAFE in the foreign exchange management information system directly and the compliance investigation will be carried out based on the following principles:

i. The domestic resident natural person shall provide evidence that in the formation of his offshore rights and interests does not involve any acts of foreign exchange evasion, illegal procurement, changing the use of foreign exchange without authorization and other acts that violate the foreign exchange administration regulations;

ii. The SAFE shall ensure that there is no false undertaking being made by the foreign-invested enterprise being set up via round-trip investment when applying for foreign exchange registration;

iii. Between November 1, 2005 and the date of application, whether the foreign invested enterprise established via round-trip investment made any offshore payments for profits, liquidation dividends, consideration of equity transfer, capital reduction proceeds, retrieved investment in advance, principle and interest of shareholder loan and other payments (including offshore payments of profits to be used for domestic re-investment and capital expansion).

Should any acts of violation be found, the principle of punishment before registration of round-trip investment shall be applied before the non-SPV is recorded with the SAFE. In short although registration is not required for round-trip investment of by a non-SPV, the SAFE imposes stringent supervision on non-SPVs as on SPVs.

c. Offshore investment by domestic natural persons

Applicable laws do not forbid offshore investments by domestic natural persons. However, in practice, since the relevant authorities, such as SAFE have not promulgated operating rules (except such operating rules concerning round-trip investment and employee incentive plans) in this regard, domestic natural persons often find it impossible to obtain foreign exchange registration for the purpose of offshore investments. As a result, the parties are unable to remit legitimate income obtained through such investments back to the country. Although the Circular 19 does not provide any specific provision regarding foreign exchange registration procedures for domestic natural persons investing overseas, it provides guidelines where offshore entities, directly or indirectly controlled by domestic natural persons, engage in domestic direct investments in China. Circular 19 provides that, under such circumstances, the legitimacy of the offshore rights and interests of the domestic natural persons shall be examined, furthermore, such investments shall be deemed and recorded as "round-trip investment of non-SPVs".

We are of the view that "round-trip investment of non-SPVs" provides a legitimate basis for the domestic natural persons to remit profits from offshore investments into China. Although the SAFE continues to restrict foreign exchange registration for domestic natural persons investing overseas, it has established procedure for foreign exchange registration, if it is evident that an offshore investment made by a domestic natural person into an offshore entity is conducted for the purpose of direct round-trip investment back to domestic enterprises. This provides a legitimate channel for profits obtained by domestic natural persons through offshore investments to be remitted back to China via "round-trip investment of non-SPVs."

E. Foreign Exchange Deregistration

Attachment 1.5 of Circular 19 sets out operating rules concerning deregistration of SPV's round-trip investment. Deregistration of SPV's round-trip investment is required when a domestic enterprise or natural person who has actual control over the SPV transfers the equity of the SPV to other domestic or offshore entities or offshore natural persons. Attachment 1.5, however, does not cover the circumstances when a domestic natural person takes over the SPV. We consider that this indicates foreign exchange registration for domestic natural persons in offshore investments can not be obtained currently, except for investments made through round-trip investments in SPVs or employee incentive plans. This is in line with the current practices of the SAFE.

The above is a brief analysis of the main differences between Circular 19 and Old Operating Rules. Because Circular 19 has only been promulgated for a short time, it is still vague regarding interpretation and application by different levels of foreign exchange administrative authorities in practice. Further study is needed when subsequent cases and opinions from the SAFE can be obtained.

Notes:

1、Hui Fa [2011] No.19, effective as of July 1, 2011.
2、Hui Fa [2005] No.75, effective as of November 1,2005.
3、Hui Zong Fa [2005] No. 124, effective as of November 24,2005.
4、Hui Zong Fa [2007] No. 106, effective as of May 29, 2007.
5、Hui Zong Fa [2007] No. 77, effective as of May 6, 2009.
6、Effective as of September 8, 2006.
7、The definition of a special purpose company is different from the definition of an SPV in the Circular 75. Pursuant to the Acquisition Regulation, a special purpose company refers to an offshore company directly or indirectly controlled by a domestic company or Chinese natural person realizing the interests of a domestic company actually owned by the aforesaid domestic company or Chinese natural person by means of offshore listing.
8、Hui Fa [2010] No. 59, effective as of November 22, 2010.
9、Pursuit to Circular 75, a special purpose company refers to an offshore company directly established or indirectly controlled by a domestic company or Chinese natural person realizing the assets or interests of a domestic company holding by the aforesaid domestic company or Chinese natural person by means of equity financing(including convertible bond financing).

此次新颁布的19号文是75号文及旧操作规程的又一次更新和延伸，明确了如在19号文中与现行有效的77号文规定不一致的地方，以19号文为准。新颁布的19号文在一定程度上体现了资本项目外汇管制逐步开放、简化流程的趋势。本文旨在通过对新旧操作规程内容的对比，结合我们之前在四川省外汇管理局（“地方外管局”）办理相关业务的经验，理解有关75号文下外汇监管的发展趋势，指导我们在19号文下办理涉及75号文的相关业务。

二、新旧操作规程的主要区别和简要分析

1、特殊目的公司设立的外汇登记

(1) 审核标准

根据77号文，在办理特殊目的公司设立时，需要提供境外融资商业计划书，其内容包括了（i）实际控制人与管理层的基本情况介绍；（ii）将境内居民的境内资产转移由特殊目的公司控制的过程、控制方式及后续融资的法律安排及可行性分析，境内居民与其控制的境内企业、计划设立或控制的特殊目的公司之间的投资关系说明；（iii）各境内居民在特殊目的公司的持股比例（若有员工持股计划和管理层期权激励计划，应予以披露）；（iv）计划融资方式、融资金额以及境外融资机构的基本情况介绍、与境外融资机构达成的融资意向及备忘录情况说明；（v）境外融资资金使用计划说明；（vi）境内企业所属行业发展历程、近三年财务基本状况（境内企业成立未满三年，说明其成立以来的财务状况）；（vii）境内企业所在市场前景、市场开发策略、发展规划和财务预测、市场风险分析等七个方面。审核原则为“重点审核境外融资商业计划书、书面申请有关融资方式、规模、条件、资金调回安排及方式的合理性与可行性、一致性”。可见在77号文下，外管局对特殊目的公司的设立是实质性的审查。我们之前的相关实践经验也验证了这一点。

根据19号文，在办理特殊目的公司设立时，需提供境内企业权力机构同意境外融资的决议书或个人同意境外融资的书面说明，未要求提供境外融资商业计划书及77号文中要求在境外融资商业计划书中列明的信息。19号文在审核原则上也未要求对商业上的“合理性”和“可行性”进行审查。我们倾向于认为，在19号文下，外管局对特殊目的公司的设立相对来说是一种形式审查，与19号文简化相关操作的主旨一致。

(2) 登记受理条件

19号文与77号文一致规定，在办理登记之前，可在境外先行设立特殊目的公司，但在登记完成前，该特殊目的公司不得发生境外融资、股权变动或返程投资等实质性资本或股权变动，即一般提交登记申请的时间应为境外特殊目的公司境外融资等实质性资本或股权变动以前。若在申请登记之前特殊目的公司已发生实质性资本或股权变动的，则应适用补办登记的相关规定。

根据77号文，特殊目的公司设立的登记受理条件之一为境内企业和/或境内自然人与境外融资机构已达成明确的融资意向并签署备忘录。根据我们以往项目的经验，有时在申请特殊目的公司设立登记时，境内企业和/或境内自然人与境外融资机构并未签署备忘录，甚至尚未确定境外融资机构，地方外管局经考虑项目的紧迫性和特殊性仍然受理了申请，予以办理登记。19号文并未设置上述受理条件。我们倾向于认为，19号文允许境内企业和/或境内自然人在与境外融资机构达成明确的融资意向或签署备忘录以前，申请设立特殊目的公司的登记，这将丰富融资结构的设计，使境外融资更为灵活。

2、特殊目的公司设立、并购境内企业的外汇登记

(1) 境内资产注入的认定

2006年8月8日中华人民共和国商务部、国家外汇管理局等六部委联合颁布《关于外国投资者并购境内企业的规定》（6）（“并购规定”），规定境内公司、企业或自然人以其在境外合法设立或控制的公司名义并购与其有关联关系的境内的公司，应报商务部审批。75号文下的境内居民（包括境内企业或自然人）在境外设立特殊目的公司，并以境外特殊目的公司返程收购境内居民持有的境内公司的股权适用并购规定的上述规定，即需要报商务部审批。据我们了解，当时为避免相关并购交易在并购规定生效后提交商务部审批所带来的不确定性，有很多计划境外上市的境内企业希望赶在并购规定生效前取得有权地方商务部门对相关并购交易的批复。所以判断境内资产于何时注入境外特殊目的公司显得尤为重要。当时有效的124号文中并未明确境内资产注入境外特殊目的公司的认定条件。故在106号文颁布之前，普遍以有权商务部门出具同意外国投资者并购境内企业的批复为境内资产注入境外特殊目的公司的认定条件。但随后颁布的106号文和77号文中均规定“以办理完毕境内企业外资外汇登记为境内资产注入境外特殊目的公司的认定条件”。

19号文中并无106号文和77号文中的表述。19号文的这一变动是否从侧面反映了外管局默认境内资产注入境外特殊目的公司的时间为境内企业取得有权商务部门的并购批复之日还有待外管局作出进一步解释。

(2) 持续经营三年的要求

106号文和77号文中均规定“……，或外国投资者为已办理境外投资外汇登记的境外企业，但未按照批准的经营范围持续经营三年，应不予受理该企业设立、并购境内企业外汇登记的申请”。根据以往我们的项目经验，在106号文和77号文适用时，地方外管局在具体操作中亦并未严格执行“三年持续经营”的要求。19号文并无有关特殊目的公司需要满足三年持续经营要求的表述。我们倾向于认为，在特殊目的公司设立、并购境内企业外汇登记时，19号文对特殊目的公司的持续经营时间并无要求。

(3) 股权并购的外汇登记

根据并购规定，若商务部批准外国投资者以股权作为支付手段并购境内公司的，外汇管理机关向境内公司颁发加注“自颁发之日起8个月内有效”字样的外汇登记证；若商务部批准特殊目的公司（7）以股权并购境内公司的，外汇管理机关向境内公司颁发加注“自颁发之日起14个月内有效”字样的外汇登记证。

针对外国投资者以股权作为支付手段并购境内公司，106号文和77号文仅笼统地规定被并购境内企业取得的外汇登记证的加注情况应与批准证书和营业执照上的加注情况一致。19号文对外国投资者股权并购境内公司和特殊目的公司股权并购境内公司的外汇登记情况进行了区分并加以具体描述。特别是针对外国投资者股权并购境内公司，明确规定在外汇登记取消加注前，被并购境内企业的外汇支付受到限制，如不得向股东分配红利，不得向有关联关系的公司提供担保，不得对外支付转股、减资、清算等资本项目款项。新操作规程更好地与并购规定的相关规定进行了衔接，且更加清晰、明确，避免造成适用中的混乱。

3、特殊目的公司返程投资补登记

(1) 先处罚，后补办登记

根据106号文，在办理特殊目的公司返程投资补登记时，需提供书面申请，详细说明境内企业和实际控制人基本情况、境外特殊目的公司的股权结构以及境外融资、特殊目的公司对境内投资的详细情况。在审核上，外管局主要关注境内企业是否向特殊目的公司支付过利润、红利、清算、转股、减资、股东贷款本息等款项（“对外支付”），若发生过对外支付，应按照有关规定在发生额度内追究境内企业和实际控制人的逃汇责任后予以补办登记。特殊目的公司并购境内企业，实际控制人以虚假声明方式骗取外商投资企业外汇登记的，申请补办特殊目的公司外汇登记时，应对境内企业骗取外汇登记的行为进行处罚后再补办登记。

106号文首次明确了“先处罚，后补办登记”的原则，但其后颁布的77号文未对特殊目的公司补办登记的操作规程进行规定。鉴于此，在77号文颁布之后至2010年11月22日颁布的《国家外汇管理局关于加强外汇业务管理有关问题的通知》（“59号文操作指引”）（8）所涉资本项目业务的操作指引中重申“先处罚，后补办登记”原则之前的一段时间内，各个地方外汇管理部门对于特殊目的公司能否补办登记、如何补办登记的态度和操作并不统一，补办登记存在极大的不确定性。

19号文再次明确且强调了“先处罚，后补办登记”原则。同时，在补办登记时，除审核106号文中提及的境内企业的对外支付情况外，还明确了两条审核内容，其一，办理特殊目的公司登记之前，境外特殊目的公司是否已经发生实质性资本或股权变动；其二，返程投资设立的外资企业在办理外汇登记时，是否存在虚假承诺。我们倾向于认为，19号文进一步明确了补办登记的可行性，但同时也加强了在补办登记时对实际控制人是否存在违反外汇管理法规行为的审查力度，强调了处罚的前置性。

(2) 专项审计报告

根据我们以往的项目经验，在106号文适用时，就办理境内自然人特殊目的公司外汇补登记时对境内企业是否存在对外支付行为的审查主要是依赖于境内自然人的书面承诺。根据59号文操作指引，境内自然人特殊目的公司外汇补登记时需要提交专业机构出具的专项审计报告。19号文再次明确了上述要求。我们倾向于认为，外管局加强了补办登记时对境内企业对外支付和是否存在逃汇行为的审查力度。

4、非特殊目的公司返程投资

(1) 非特殊目的公司定义

相较于旧操作规程，19号文提出了一个新的概念，即非特殊目的公司。但在19号文中并未对非特殊目的公司进行明确定义。根据75号文中特殊目的公司的定义（9），我们认为75号文下的特殊目的公司需要同时满足两个条件，其一，进行股权融资，其二，股权融资的基础是境内资产或权益。但须提请注意的是，实践中，在目前适用的77号文操作规程下，地方外管局对特殊目的公司的理解更为宽泛。据我们了解，实践中存在并非真正意义上的特殊目的公司最终办理了特殊目的公司外汇登记的情况。

对于19号文中的“非特殊目的公司”，我们理解，严格来说未能同时满足上述特殊目的公司的两个条件的境外公司将被认定为19号文下的非特殊目的公司。但不排除19号文生效后，外汇管理部门对非特殊目的公司的定义进行不同解释。

(2) 针对非特殊目的公司返程投资的审核

根据19号文规定，针对非特殊目的公司返程投资，无需为该非特殊目的公司的境外企业办理特殊目的公司登记。该境外企业控制的境内企业所在地外汇局应在直接投资外汇管理信息系统中将其标识为“非特殊目的公司返程投资”并按以下原则审核其合规性：

(i) 境内居民个人应提供其境外权益形成过程中不存在逃汇、非法套汇、擅自改变外汇用途等违反外汇管理法规的证明材料；

(ii) 返程投资设立的外资企业在办理外汇登记时是否存在虚假承诺；

(iii) 2005年11月1日至申请日之间，返程投资设立的外资企业是否向境外支付利润、清算、转股、减资、先行回收投资、股东贷款本息等款项（含向境外支付利润用于境内再投资、转增资等）。

对于存在违规行为的，遵循先处罚再办理“非特殊目的公司返程投资”标识的原则。简言之，虽然对于非特殊目的公司返程投资无需像特殊目的公司返程投资那样办理登记，但外汇管理部门对其监管的力度并未放松。

(3) 境内自然人境外投资

虽然目前相关法律法规并未禁止境内自然人境外投资，但在实践操作中，相关主管部门，如外汇管理部门并未出台配套的操作规程（针对返程投资及员工期权计划的操作规程除外），导致境内自然人进行境外投资无法办理外汇登记，并进而导致境内自然人通过上述投资取得的收益无法合法汇回境内。19号文虽然仍未对境内自然人境外投资的外汇登记操作规程进行明确规定，但是，针对境内自然人以其直接或间接控制的境外实体于境内直接投资的情况，19号文规定，其一，审查境内自然人境外权益形成的合法性，其二，在办理新设外商投资企业外汇登记时标识“非特殊目的公司返程投资”。我们理解“非特殊目的公司返程投资”的标识使得境内自然人将其境外投资取得的收益最终汇回境内有了依据，也即是说，虽然外管局仍然没有完全放开境内自然人境外投资的外汇登记，但若境内自然人境外投资后通过境外实体对境内进行直接投资，则该直接投资的外汇登记是有相应的操作规程的，进而使得境内自然人境外投资取得的收益能通过“非特殊目的公司返程投资”这一渠道合法汇回境内。

5、外汇注销登记

19号文单列附表1.5就注销特殊目的公司返程投资外汇登记进行了规定。明确实际控制特殊目的公司的境内企业或自然人将特殊目的公司的股权转让给其他境内外机构或境外自然人时应办理特殊目的公司返程投资外汇注销登记。需要提请注意的是，附表1.5未对境内自然人并购特殊目的公司的情形进行相应规定。我们理解这正与目前外汇管理实践相符，即除特殊目的公司返程投资及员工期权计划外，境内自然人境外投资的外汇登记尚无法办理。

以上是我们就19号文相较于旧操作规程的主要区别的简要叙述和分析。由于19号文颁布不久且尚未正式实施，各级外汇管理部门对19号文内容的理解和适用及具体实务中的核查标准和尺度均存在不确定性。本文的上述分析是否准确、适当，还有待在19号文正式实施后结合相关案例及/或相关外汇主管部门的意见进一步研究。

注释：

1、汇发[2011]19 号，自2011年7月1日起实施。
2、汇发[2005]75号，自2005年11月1日起实施。
3、汇综发[2005]124号，自2005年11月24日起实施。
4、汇综发[2007]106号，自2007年5月29日起实施。
5、汇综发[2009]77号，自2009年5月9号起实施。
6、自2006年9月8日起施行。
7、并购规定中特殊目的公司的定义不同于75号文中特殊目的公司的定义。并购规定中的特殊目的公司系指中国境内公司或自然人为实现以其实际拥有的境内公司权益在境外上市而直接或间接控制的境外公司。
8、汇发[2010]59号, 自2010年11月22 日起实施。
9、根据75号文，特殊目的公司是指境内居民法人或境内居民自然人以其持有的境内企业资产或权益在境外进行股权融资（包括可转换债融资）为目的而直接设立或间接控制的境外企业。

Previously, regulatory requirements with regard to offshore lending were mainly found in the 2004 SAFE Notice on Certain Issues Relating to Internal Management of Foreign Currency Funds by the Multinational Companies (the “2004 Notice”). The purpose of the 2004 Notice was to optimize the allocation of foreign currency funds and to facilitate the utilization of foreign currency inter- company loans between members of multinational companies headquartered in the PRC. In accordance with Clause 23 of the new Notice, if there is any inconsistency between the 2004 Notice and the new Notice, the new Notice shall prevail. We set out below an introduction on the key features of the Notice and its relevant provisions.

Key Features of the Notice

1. Lender and Borrower under an Offshore Lending
In accordance with the Notice, eligible domestic enterprises of any type would be permitted to provide foreign currency loans to their wholly owned subsidiaries or for the equity of enterprises legally incorporated offshore.

2. Qualification Requirements for Offshore Lending
The requirements set out in the Notice for offshore lending by domestic enterprises to their offshore wholly-owned subsidiaries or equity interests include: Both the lender and the borrower have been legally incorporated with fully paid-up registered capitals; All foreign direct investment projects of the lender in the past years have been verified by the regulatory authorities in charge of foreign investments and filed with SAFE under foreign exchange registrations, and the lender (incorporated and existing for more than one year) has gained a second (or above)-grade ranking in the latest joint annual inspection of foreign investments, etc.

3. Forms of Offshore Lending
The forms of offshore lending as provided in the Notice are as follows:
(1) Direct lending, namely the domestic enterprise extends loan facilities directly to its wholly-owned subsidiaries or equity interests legally incorporated offshore;
(2) Entrustment loans, namely lending in the form of entrustment loans through a designated foreign exchange bank or the finance company of an enterprises group duly incorporated and qualified to conduct foreign exchange business.

4. Lending Threshold
The Notice supervises the offshore lending outstanding balance amount, and provides that the outstanding balance of a lender's offshore lending shall be limited to the lower of: (i) 30% of the lender's owner equity, and (ii) the duly registered investment amount of the Chinese party as agreed.

5. Verification of Outbound Remittance of Funds
The Notice simplifies the verification procedure of outbound remittance of foreign exchange funds. Subject to the verified offshore lending threshold and the effective term of lending, domestic enterprises engaged in offshore lending are permitted to re-lend the funds that have been repaid without the need to obtain SAFE verification for each of the loans.

6. Sources of Funds for Lending
The sources of funds for offshore lending as provided in the Notice have been expanded to not only include the self-owned foreign currency funds of the lender (as provided in the 2004 Notice), but also includes foreign currency funds converted from RMB funds and the funds in the foreign exchange capital pool as verified by SAFE.

7. The Income and Payment Scope of the Special Account for Lending
Compared to the 2004 Notice, the Notice has enlarged the income and payment scope of the Special Account for Lending.

8. Domestic Transfer of Funds
The Notice simplifies the verification procedure for domestic transfer of funds under offshore lending. Except for the outbound remittance of funds under the offshore lending from the Special Account for Lending and the inbound remittance of funds for repayment of principal and interest or enforcement of security to the Special Account for Lending, other domestic transfers of funds between the relevant foreign exchange accounts and the Special Account for Lending would not be subject to verification by the local SAFE. The lender may proceed with such transfer with the designated foreign exchange bank by presenting the relevant verification documents in respect of the offshore lending.

9. Statistical Monitoring and Risk Precaution under Offshore Lending
The Notice improves the statistical monitoring and risk precaution mechanism under offshore lending. For example, matters such as the verification of the offshore lending threshold, the opening of the Special Account for Lending, the domestic transfer of foreign exchange capital and the outbound and inbound remittance are supervised under the SAFE foreign exchange administration information system for foreign direct investments. Meanwhile, the Notice provides SAFE with the discretion to make timely adjustments to the qualification requirements for offshore lending, the sources of funds, the amount and the term of the lending etc., according to the balance of payments and the development in the offshore lending business.
 

Conclusion
Compared to the 2004 Notice, the Notice has reduced the qualification requirements for offshore lending, expanded the sources of funds, and simplified the verification and remittance procedure for offshore lending. Currently, domestic enterprises have achieved great success in their offshore investments. However, the difficulty in obtaining financing offshore and the shortage of floating capital has been an obstacle to the further developments of offshore Chinese funded enterprises. The issue of the Notice would encourage more Chinese enterprises with strong capital strength to “go abroad”, further facilitate investment and trading so as to stabilize the offshore demands and to deal with the international financial crisis in an effective way.

背景
为解决已“走出去”的境外中资企业在境外融资难和流动资金不足的问题，支持更
多有资金实力的企业“走出去”，提高境内企业的资金使用效率，国家外汇管理局（以
下简称“外管局”）于2009 年6 月9 日发布了《关于境内企业境外放款外汇管理有关问
题的通知》（以下简称“《通知》”），并将于2009 年8 月1 日起开始实施。
《通知》发布以前，与境外放款有关的外汇管理方面的规定主要为外管局于2004
年10 月18 日颁布的《国家外汇管理局关于跨国公司外汇资金内部运营管理有关问题
的通知》（以下简称“汇发【2004】104 号文”）。汇发【2004】104 号文旨在优化外汇
资源配置，便利和支持总部设在中国的跨国公司成员之间进行外汇资金的拆放。根据
《通知》第23 条的规定，汇发【2004】104 号文中涉及境外放款的外汇管理条款与
《通知》有冲突的，以《通知》为准。
我们将在下文介绍《通知》的主要特征及其相关规定。本简报旨在做出一般性的
指引，而不构成对某一特定案例的具体意见。
《通知》的主要特征
一、境外放款的主体和对象
根据《通知》的规定，只要符合一定条件，任何类型的境内企业均可为其在境外合法
设立的全资附属企业或参股企业发放外汇贷款。
二、境外放款的资格条件
《通知》规定的境内企业向其境外全资附属企业或参股企业放款的条件包括：放款人
和借款人均依法注册成立，且注册资本均已足额到位；放款人历年的境外直接投资项
目均经国内境外投资主管部门核准并在外管局办理外汇登记手续，且参加最近一次境
外投资联合年检评级为二级以上（成立不足一年的除外）等。
三、放款形式
《通知》规定的境外放款形式有：
（1）直接放款，即由境内企业直接向其境外合法设立的全资附属企业或参股企业提供
放款；
（2）委托贷款：即通过外汇指定银行或经批准设立并具有外汇业务资格的企业集团财
务公司以委托贷款的方式进行放款。
四、放款额度
《通知》对境外放款实行余额管理，并规定放款人的境外放款余额不得超过其所有者
权益的30%，同时不得超过借款人已办妥相关登记手续的中方协议投资额，以低者为
限。
五、资金汇出的核准
《通知》简化了外汇资金汇出的核准手续，在核准的境外放款额度和有效期内，从事
境外放款的境内企业可将已回收的境外放款额度循环使用，而无需就每次放款单独取
得当地外管局的核准。
六、放款的资金来源
《通知》规定的放款资金来源由汇发【2004】104 号文的自有外汇资金扩大到企业
的自有外汇资金、人民币购汇资金以及经外管局核准的外币资金池资金。
七、放款专用账户的收支范围
《通知》在汇发【2004】104 号文的基础上扩大了境外放款专用账户的收支范围。
八、放款资金的境内划转
《通知》简化了境外放款所涉及的境内划转核准手续，除放款资金由境外放款专用
账户汇出境外或还本付息、担保履约等资金由境外汇入境外放款专用账户需当地外
管局核准外，资金在境内相关外汇账户与境外放款专用账户之间的划转，放款人可
持境外放款核准文件等到外汇指定银行直接办理，无需当地外管局的另行核准。
九、境外放款的统计监测与风险防范
《通知》完善了境外放款的统计监测与风险防范机制，主要体现在：将境外放款的
额度核准、境外放款专用账户、境内外汇资金划转以及汇出、汇入等纳入国家外管
局直接投资外汇管理信息系统；设定了国家外管局可以根据我国国际收支形势和境
外放款情况，对境内企业放款资格条件、来源、数量以及期限等进行适时调整的保
障条款。
总结
相较汇发【2004】104 号文，《通知》在保证风险可控的前提下，最大程度地
降低了放款人的资质门槛，对资金来源明显放宽，同时简化了境外放款的核准
和汇兑手续。目前我国境外投资取得了积极成效，但境外融资难和流动资金不
足的问题一直影响了境外中资企业的进一步发展壮大。《通知》的及时出台将
有利于支持更多有资金实力的企业“走出去”，进一步促进投资贸易便利化，
以稳定外需，更好地应对国际金融危机。
 

Before the issuance of such a Circular, the above-mentioned question has for a very long time confused not only foreign investors, its lawyers, and other consultants, but also some local officials of SAFE partly due to the reason that SAFE did not clarify this question by issuing an official and universally-applicable rule. As a result the answer to this question has to depend, to large extent, on the local regulatory practice. Not surprisingly, in practice, some local offices of SAFE held a view that a FIE should not be allowed to exchange the foreign currency from its capital account into RMB for purposes of re-investing in China on the grounds that the foreign currency deposited in such account had been specially approved to satisfy the defined project as described in the business scope. In the meantime, some others officials held different views and allowed the FIE to settle the foreign exchange into RMB to satisfy the needs of re-investing in China. This is particularly the case where a local government is thirsty for foreign investment and it may be driven to take a more flexible policy.

Now, with the promulgation of the Circular, the door to direct re-investment by FIE(s) using the RMB settled from its foreign exchange capital account in China is closed. If a FIE happens to come upon a good investment opportunity, it will have to use its accumulated RMB profits or income or borrow RMB from domestic banks.

As is known in recent years, international “hot” money has unnerved the Chinese government which has thus taken a series of measures to cope with the issue. Without doubt the new rule is intended to strengthen the administration of foreign exchange flow and curb the inflow of hot money. However while it may contribute to the strengthening of its foreign exchange administration and the stability of its economic growth, it may also add the cost of making re-investment by foreign investors through their FIE(s) in some cases more difficult from a commercial perspective.