中国公司透明度领域立法进展

2024年7月1日

作者：覃蓉，融孚律师事务所，高级法律顾问

2024年4月29日颁布、并将于2024年11月1日生效的《受益所有人信息管理办法》，代表了中国在推进公司透明度领域的努力，这与国际社会要求商业实体披露更多关于其最终受益人信息的趋势是一致的。本文将对照相关的全球背景对该法规作一个简单分析。

一、 全球背景

依据欧盟发布的第四次反洗钱指令，欧洲国家被要求在2017年6月26日之前建立有关公司最终受益人的登记体系，随后发布的第五次反洗钱指令进一步要求该等登记体系应自2020年起向公众公开。在英国，对于私人公司的股东和“重大控制人”公众可通过检索Companies House的数据库查询。在香港和新加坡，公司的股东信息（但不包括最终受益人信息）也是公开的。但是，该等信息在美国大多数州以及一些离岸司法区域例如英属维京群岛、开曼和百慕大仍然是不公开的。近年来美国也开始显示出要求公司增加透明度的政策趋势，最主要的事件就是2021年制定的《公司透明度法案》，美国金融犯罪执法网络(FinCEN)颁布并于2024年1月1日生效的《受益所有权报告要求最终规则》（以下简称“FinCEN规则”），及将于2026年1月1日生效的《纽约州有限责任公司透明度法案》（以下简称“NY LLCTA”）。下文对《受益所有人信息管理办法》的讨论将对照FinCEN规则和NY LLCTA，因为该等法规是公司透明度全球立法的最近期、也可能是最重大的进展。

二、 《受益所有人信息管理办法》之前的情况

在《受益所有人信息管理办法》出台之前，在中国的全国性证券交易所上市或将要上市的公司被要求在上市申请阶段以及在上市后的每年年报中披露关于“实际控制人”的信息。

“实际控制人”由证券相关的法规和证监会以及沪深两地证券交易所的信息披露规则所定义，要求披露多重所有权架构以及任何一层所涉及的信托和其他资产管理安排，直至追溯至自然人、国有资产管理机构、集体组织。在最终控制层面，只有持股下一级控制层面公司的股份比例超过50%的股东被视为“实际控制人”，但若在最终最终层面，没有任何股东持有下一级控制层面公司的股份超过50%，则应披露最终控制层面持股比例在10%以上的股东情况，如果没有持股10%以上的股东，则应披露持股比例5%以上的股东情况。另外，如果任何“实际控制人”在该等所有权架构图的任何层面采用信托或资产管理的方式持有权益，应当披露该等信托和资产管理的协议包括信托或资产管理费用、变更和终止的权利、信托资产处理安排、公司股份表决权的行使等。任何自然人一旦根据上述标准被认定为“实际控制人”，则需要披露其国籍、在国外的任何居留权、和过去10年曾控股的境内外上市公司情况。

非上市公司仅在少数情况下需要披露“实际控制人”。例如，中国境内的公司向发展和改革部门申请境外投资的审批时，需要披露其控股股东（如果不存在控股股东，则最大股东）的多层级持股结构直至追溯至自然人或国有企业。类似地，外商投资企业在成立时需要通过网上电子系统向商务部门进行信息报告，其中需要披露其股东的“实际控制人”身份并披露其相应的身份证件号码。在该等商务部门的信息报告中，“实际控制人”包括自然人、中国境内或境外的上市公司、国有企业、非政府组织和外国政府，其认定标准如下：(1)直接或间接持有50%以上的股份、股权、财产份额、投票权或其他类似权益；或(2)虽然不满足第(1)项标准，但满足以下标准之一：(A)直接或间接拥有任命董事会或类似决策机构一般以上成员的权利，(B)拥有的投票权对股东会、董事会或类似决策机构产生实质影响，或(C)以其他方式实质影响公司的业务、财务、人事或技术。在上述两种情形下，所有该等信息都仅供政府机构（境外投资审批信息归发改部门，外商投资信息报告信息归商务部门）内部存档使用，不对公众开放。

尽管如此，中国和美国及离岸司法区域相比，有关非上市公司的公开信息并不算少，这主要归功于国家市场监督管理总局所管理的国家企业信用信息公示系统，以及各级地方市监局所管理的公司设立和后续变更的登记和备案内档。线上的国家企业信用信息公示系统查询对公众开放，并披露包括股东身份在内的大量公司信息。地方市监局的内档向中国执业律师和律师事务所开放查询，通常包括股东的身份证明文件。对于持股架构体系完全设置在中国境内的公司，国家企业信用信息公示系统所公示的信息足以查询到最终的实际控制人，但通过信托、代持或类似协议方式持有股权、投票权或类似权益的情形除外。

三、 《受益所有人信息管理办法》项下的披露适用于哪些主体

《受益所有人信息管理办法》首次对中国境内的所有公司设置普遍适用的最终受益人报告义务。

《受益所有人信息管理办法》适用于依据中国法律成立的所有公司和合伙（无论是否全部或部分由外资所有）以及所有外国公司在中国境内的分支机构（该类机构无法人资格，常见的情形是外资银行境内分行）（以下合称“备案主体”）。

FinCEN规则和NY LLCTA对受益人的报告义务创设了23类豁免实体，从美国上市公司、证券公司、银行、保险公司、风险投资基金顾问、会计师事务所、公用设施提供商到“大型营运公司”。与之形成鲜明对比的是，《受益所有人信息管理办法》项下只有一种豁免情形，适用于满足以下标准的公司或合伙：(1)注册资本（或出资）低于人民币1000万，(2)所有股东或合伙人都是自然人，和(3)除股东或合伙人之外没有其他人对其实际控制权或收益权。值得注意的是，上述三项标准之间是并列关系且要求同时满足，另外，对于第（3）项还要求当事人作出书面承诺，这些要求都使得该例外情形的适用范围相当狭窄。上市公司，尽管在欧盟的最终受益人报告制度、FinCEN规则和NY LLCTA项下都获得了豁免，却不属于《受益所有人信息管理办法》规定的豁免情形。

另外，《受益所有人信息管理办法》项下的报告义务适用于该法规生效之前成立的备案主体，但有一年的过渡期，该等主体被允许在2025年11月1日之前完成报告义务。

2024年11月1日当日或之后成立的备案主体需要在设立登记时或在设立后30天内完成报告义务。

四、 报告内容及报告信息对哪些主体开放

备案主体被要求披露“受益所有人”身份并对每一名“受益所有人”披露以下信息：姓名、性别、国籍、出生日期、经常居住地或工作单位地址、联系方式、身份证件或身份证明文件种类、号码和有效期限、受益所有权关系类型、权益比例及形成日期、终止日期（如有）。如果“受益所有人”的身份或报告的信息发生变化，备案主体应在该等变化发生之日起30日内进行报告。

《受益所有人信息管理办法》项下的信息接收报告的机构是市场监督管理部门。市场监督管理总局将为此设立一个网上的报告提交系统。

接收到该等报告信息之后，市场监督管理部门会将其推送给中国人民银行，人民银行会管理一个统一的受益所有人信息管理系统，该等系统里的信息将根据请求分享给：(1)中国其他政府部门为履行职责需要：(2)银行或其他特定金融机构在开展业务过程中为履行反洗钱和反恐怖融资的义务需要。

和FinCEN规则及NY LLCTA一样，《受益所有人信息管理办法》项下报告的信息不会对公众开放，公众也无法检索。

五、 《受益所有人信息管理办法》项下如何认定“受益所有人”

和之前第二部分所讨论的上市公司、境外直接投资和外商投资信息报告制度下所涉及的“实际控制人”不同，《受益所有人信息管理办法》采取的是“穿透”方法，折叠中间的各层控股价格来认定备案主体的“受益所有人”为直接或间接持有备案主体25%以上股权、收益权或投票权，或以其他方式单独或联合对备案主体进行 “实际控制”的自然人。“实际控制”又被进一步定义为，通过协议约定或关系密切的人等方式实施控制，例如决定法定代表人、董事、监事、高级管理人员或者执行事务合伙人的任免，决定重大经营、管理决策的制定或者执行，决定财务收支，长期实际支配使用重要资产或者主要资金等。

以上采取25%的股权标准再加以一个宽泛兜底的“控制”概念来定义“受益所有人”的做法，与欧盟的制度以及FinCEN规则和NY LLCTA都是一致的。

作为对上述一般性标准的例外，《受益所有人信息管理办法》还规定了以下规则：

首先，如果备案主体不存在满足上述标准的人选，则应将其负责日常运营管理的人视为“受益所有人”进行备案。

其次，如果备案主体是外国公司在华分支机构，除了按照上述标准认定“受益所有人”之外，其还应将该分支机构的高级管理人员作为“受益所有人“进行备案。

再次，国有全资公司和国有控股公司作为备案主体只需要将法定代表人作为“受益所有人”进行备案，而无需按照上述标准认定“受益所有人”。

六、 《受益所有人信息管理办法》可能产生的影响

不遵守《受益所有人信息管理办法》项下的报告义务，可能导致的罚款是人民币5万元，该金额相对较低可能不足以威慑行为人。不太确定的是，市场监督管理部门是否会将该等报告中的不实信息视为公司设立登记过程中的欺诈行为进行更严厉的处罚，例如最高可达人民币100万的罚款和/或吊销营业执照。

在华投资或设有子公司的跨国公司将需要向中国政府披露更多的信息。根据公司股权架构图向上追溯直至自然人的要求对于具有复杂多层控股架构的集团来说，可能费时费力。一旦备案的“受益所有人”如果身份变化或者相关备案的信息发生变化，要进行更新报告的要求，对于股权架构上存在境外上市公司并且其股份交易频繁的备案主体来说可能存在相当困难。对于自然人信息的披露（例如出生日期、经常居住地址、联系方式和身份证明）可能存在与个人隐私冲突的问题，尽管该等信息并不会向其他的市场监督部门备案文件一样对公众开放。

《受益所有人信息管理办法》明确规定，外国公司在其本国享受的受益所有人申报豁免标准不适用于中国。因此，对于备案主体的股权架构上所涉及的美国公司，即使其属于FinCEN 规则项下的一项或多项豁免情形，其在中国的备案体系下也必须穿透并继续向上追溯。

另外，《受益所有人信息管理办法》还将暴露一些中国自然人通过境外投资和返程投资在国内设立公司的情况。

更多的影响将还有待于观察市场监督管理部门和人民银行如何实施《受益所有人信息管理办法》，包括需要提交的报告的格式和内容，《受益所有人信息管理办法》项收集的信息将以怎样的方式与其他中国的执法部门和监管机构分享和使用（包括税务和外汇管理部门），以及该等信息是否可以由境外的执法机构和监管部门调取或依请求向其提供。

What You Need to Know About Chinese Corporate Transparency

Date: 2024-7-1

Author: Rong Qin, Senior Legal Counsel, SG&CO Law Firm

Promulgated April 29, 2024 and to be effective November 1, 2024, the Beneficial Owner Information Administrative Measures (the “BOI Measures”) ( (受益所有人信息管理办法_中国人民银行_中国政府网 (www.gov.cn) marks China’s very own effort to push for more corporate transparency in its territory, which aligns with the global regulatory trend of demanding business entities to disclose more information about their ultimate beneficial owners. Below is a quick summary of this regulation against the relevant global background.  

I. Global Background

European countries under the 4^th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AML Directive) of the European Union (EU) have been required to implement “Ultimate Beneficial Owners” registers by June 26, 2017 and are further required to make such registers public under the 5^th AML Directive since 2020. In UK, the identities of a private company’s shareholder(s) and “person(s) with significant control” are searchable though the Companies House’s online database. Shareholders (but not ultimate beneficial owners) of companies in Hong Kong and Singapore are also published. However, none of such information is publicly accessible in most states of the United States and in offshore jurisdictions such as BVI, Cayman and Bermuda. The United States has recently showed a policy trend of moving towards more compulsory corporate transparency, with the important milestones being Corporate Transparency Act of 2021, the Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements Final Rule adopted by Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of United States (FinCEN) effective January 1, 2024 (the “FinCEN Rule”), as well as the New York LLC Transparency Act (NY LLCTA) to be effective January 1, 2026. The following discussions of the BOI Measures will compare it with FinCEN Rule and NY LLCTA, as they are the most recent and arguably most important regulatory development in international corporate transparency.

II. What was the situation before the BOI Measures

In the era before the BOI Measures, public companies listed or to be listed on the national securities exchanges in China are required to disclose their “Actual Controlling Persons” in IPO application process and in their annual reports.  

“Actual Controlling Person” is defined in various securities regulations and public disclosure guidelines issued by the CSRC and Shanghai/Shenzhen Securities Exchange, which require disclosure of the multiple-layer ownership structure, as well as any trust and other asset management arrangement in or relating to any layer of such structure, of the listed (or to be listed) companies, until uncovering ultimate owners who are either natural persons, State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC, including its branches and delegates) or “collectively-owned economic entities”. At the top level of such ownership structure, only the person who owns more than 50% of the top-level holding company will be deemed “Actual Controlling Person”; provided, however, if none of the shareholders of the top-level holding company owns more than 50% of the equity of such holding company, each such shareholder holding more than 10% (or 5%, if each shareholder owns less than 10%) of the top-level holding company shall be disclosed. Further, if trust or other asset management arrangement is adopted by any “Actual Controlling Person” to hold their ownership interest at any level of such ownership structure chart, the agreement underlying such trust or asset management structure shall be disclosed including the contractual terms on fees charged by the trustee or asset manager, agreement termination or modification rights, arrangement regarding disposal of trust assets, voting of the company’s shares, etc. Any natural persons so identified as “Actual Controlling Person” shall disclose their nationality and any residence right in foreign country, as well as any controlling right they used to hold during the past 10 years in any public company listed anywhere in the world.  

Private companies are obliged to disclose “Actual Controlling Persons” only in a few limited scenarios. For example, a Chinese company when applying with the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) for approval on outbound investment (ODI) is required to disclose multi-level ownership of its controlling shareholder (or if no controlling shareholder, then the largest shareholder) till tracing to natural persons or SOEs. Similarly, foreign-invested enterprises (FIEs) are required to identify the “Actual Controlling Persons” of their shareholder(s) and disclose their identification number as a part of online reporting with the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to be completed during their formation process. In the MOC reporting,, “Actual Controlling Persons” encompasses natural persons, listed companies (both Chinese and foreign), SOEs, NGOs, and foreign government that (i) owns directly or indirectly  50% of the shares, equity right, assets share, voting right or other similar right; (ii) not meeting the criteria stated in item (i), but instead (A) directly or indirectly has power to appoint more than half of the members of the board or similar decision-making body, (B) exercises voting rights substantial to influence shareholders meeting, board meeting or similar decision-making body; or (C) otherwise .substantially influence the business, financial, HR or technology affairs of the company. All such information is kept by the authorities (NDRC in the case of ODI approval, and MOC in the case of FIE information reporting) for their own record and are not disclosed to the public.

Nonetheless, publicly available information concerning private companies in China is not scarce compared with the United States and the offshore jurisdictions, owing to the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System (NECIPS) administered by the State Administration of Market Regulation (SAMR), as well as a physical archives of company filings maintained by SAMR local branches for incorporation registrations and subsequent changes of all companies. The online NECIPS database is searchable by the public and will disclose a multitude of information including the identity of shareholder(s) of a company. The physical archives of local SAMR branches are retrievable by PRC admitted lawyers and local law firms, and usually will contain the identification documents of the shareholders. For companies with holding structures entirely based in China, the NECIPS system offers sufficient information to uncover their ultimate owners except those who hold equity, voting rights, or similar interest via trust, proxy, nominee, or similar contractual arrangements.

III. Who will be subject to disclosure under the BOI Measures

The BOI Measures for the first time imposes general reporting obligation regarding ultimate beneficial ownership on all companies in China.  

The reporting requirements under BOI Measures apply to all companies and partnerships formed under PRC law (regardless whether they are partially or wholly foreign-owned) and all Chinese branches (no legal person status, usually banks) of foreign companies (collectively, “Reporting Entities”).

In contrast with FinCEN Rule and NY LLCTA, which allowed 23 categories of exempted entities, ranging from U.S. listed companies, securities firms, banks, insurers, venture capital fund advisors, accounting firms, public utility providers to “large operating companies”, there is only one exemption available under the BOI Measures, namely, companies or partnerships (i) with registered capital (or capital contribution) below RMB 10 million, (ii) whose shareholder(s) or partner(s) are all nature persons; and (iii) not having any one other than its shareholder(s) or partner(s) with de facto control or profit right to such entity. Note that the above criteria are phrased in the conjunctive and criterion (iii) shall be certified in writing, which limits the applicable scope of such exception. Listed companies, which are exempted under the EU ultimate beneficiary ownership reporting regime, the FinCEN Rule and NY LLCTA are not exempted under the BOI Measures.  

Notably, the reporting obligation under the BOI Measures applies retroactively to Reporting Entities formed before such regulation’s effective date, while a one-year grace period is granted to such entities such that they are allowed complete reporting by November 1, 2025.

Reporting Entities formed on or after November 1, 2024 shall complete reporting upon formation or within 30 days of formation.

IV. What is to be reported and who will have access to the reported information

Reporting Entities are required to identify their “Beneficial Owners” and disclose the following information of each Beneficial Owner: name, gender, nationality, date of birth, primary residence address or business address, contact information, type,  number and validity duration of the personal identification document, nature and amount of beneficial ownership interest they hold in such Reporting Entity and the date when they obtain (or will relinquish) such interest. The Reporting Entity is also obliged to report any change in the identity of, or the reported information concerning, a Beneficial Owner within 30 days of such change.

SAMR and its local branches are the authorities responsible for collecting the reported information under the BOI Measures. An online system with portal for submitting such reports will be launched for such purpose and administered by SAMR.  

After collecting such information, SAMR will then submit it to the People’s Bank of China (PBOC). PBOC will manage the centralized database for “Beneficial Owners”, and will share such information upon request with (i) other Chinese governmental authorities which need such information to fulfill their regulatory duties; and (ii) banks and certain other financial institutions for the purpose of complying with anti-money laundry and anti-terrorism obligations as a part of their business practice.

Just like under the FinCEN Rule and the NY LLCTA., the information reported under the BOI Measures will not be available for general public search or access.

V. How to Identify “Beneficial Owners” under the BOI Measures

Different from the “Actual Controlling Person” definitions discussed in Section II for the listed company, ODI or FIE reporting , the BOI Measures takes a “look-through” approach and collapses the intermediary-levels holding structure to identify a Reporting Entity’s “Beneficial Owners” as any natural person that directly or indirectly owns more than 25% equity interest, profit right or voting right of such entity, or otherwise having “de facto control” over the Reporting Entity (either individually or collectively with other persons). “De facto control” is further defined as exerting controlling power, either by way of contract or via closely associated persons, over affairs of the Reporting Entity such as appointment or removal of legal representative, directors, supervisors or senior management (or in the case of a partnership, appointment or removal of the partner who manages affairs on behalf of the partnership), making or implementing major business or management decisions, making financial or fiscal decisions, or having over a long period of time been using or disposing material assets or funds of the Reporting Entity.

The above 25% equity test plus an all-capturing “control” element serving as the general rule for definition of “Beneficial Owner” is consistent with the EU regime as well as the FinCEN Rules and NY LLCTA.

There are a few deviations from the general rule of identifying “Beneficial Owner” under the BOI Measures:

First, if a Reporting Entity has no one meeting the above criteria, it shall designate the manager of its daily operation as the “Beneficial Owner”.

Second, a Reporting Entity that is a branch of a foreign company shall also report its senior managers as “Beneficial Owners” in addition to the persons identified under the general rule.

Third, a Reporting Entity that is a SOE either wholly owned by Chinese government or in which the Chinese government holds a controlling stake will simply report its legal representative as the “Beneficial Owner” with no need to identify any person according to the general rule.

VI. Outlook on the Impact of the OBI Measures

The penalty for failing to file report under the OBI Measures is RMB 50,000, which is arguably too low to deter a violation. It’s not clear whether SAMR will view misrepresentation in such filing as fraud in company incorporation process and impose harsher penalties such as monetary fines up to RMB 1 million and/or revocation of the business license.   

Multinational companies with subsidiaries or investments in China will expect to disclose more information to Chinese authorities than they are used to. The need to go up the corporate ownership chain and identify Beneficial Owners as natural persons may be onerous for corporate groups with complex, multi-tiered ownership structure. The requirement of reporting any change in the identities of initially reported Beneficial Owners and reported information of any Beneficial Owner is burdensome to foreign companies with any relevant holding company listed on any oversea securities stock exchange whose shares are frequently traded. The reporting of certain personal information (such as date of birth, primary residential address, contact information and personal ID documents) implicates reasonable privacy concerns, despite that such information is not anticipated to be publicly searchable like other SAMR filings.  

Exemptions offered in other countries’ corporate transparency laws and regulations are explicitly denied under the OBI Measures. Accordingly, in the case of U.S. companies implicated in the reporting of a Reporting Entity, even if they may qualify for one or more exemptions under the FinCEN Rule, the effort of going up the chain will not end at their level for the purpose of determining Beneficial Owners under the OBI Measures.

Chinese nationals who structure their investments in China via goring through an offshore route will be exposed under the OBI Measures.

More impacts may be observed after we see how SAMR and PBOC will implement the OBI Measures including the form to be prescribed for such reporting, and how information collected under the OBI Measures will be shared and utilized in other Chinese law enforcement and regulatory functions such as tax and foreign exchange control, and if such information may be subpoenaed or otherwise provided upon request by the law enforcement and regulatory agencies of other jurisdictions.