1. 数字资产和代币于香港日趋重要

数字资产、加密货币和代币在香港引起了越来越多的关注。例如，普华永道香港公司与沙盒合作，于沙盒元宇宙购入虚拟土地。非同质化代币（「NFTs」）为区块链生态系的主要论题。我们亦见证着香港监管情况的大规模发展––香港财经事务及库务局（「香港库务局」）公布了其咨询总结文件，建议建立虚拟资产交易所的牌照制度（见我们的新闻更新 ），香港金融管理局（「香港金管局」）最近的总结文件聚焦于用作支付用途的稳定币（见我们的新闻更新 ），以及香港证券及期货事务监察委员会（「香港证监会」）关于虚拟资产服务供应商和证券代币发行的倡议。因此，讨论不同形式的数字资产及香港的监管对其之影响尤其重要。

2. 有哪些不同类型的数字资产和代币？

我们先如下概述多种数字资产的类别。虽非详尽无遗，但可作为和各位讨论的出发点。

数字资产（Digital assets）

广义上，数字资产是一种无形资产，可以数字格式创建、交易和存储。其为通用术语，并涵盖以下说明之所有资产形式／分类，如虚拟资产、加密货币、数字代币，包括NFTs，以及中央银行数字货币（「CBDC」）。

虚拟资产（Virtual assets）

根据香港库务局的总结文件，虚拟资产为一种价值的数字表示法：[1]

(i) 以记账单位或经济价值的储存方式表达；

(ii) 作为（或旨在作为）公众接受的交换媒介，用于支付商品或服务或清偿债务，或作投资目的；

(iii) 可通过电子方式转让、储存或交易；及

(iv) 与其下所拟的资产形式以及其自身是否稳定无关。

根据上述定义及下文之进一步讨论，虚拟资产的范围不包括NFTs。而CBDC并非监管目标之一。

虚拟资产有时被称为加密资产。社会各界和监管机构对何种术语占主导地位并没有普遍共识。例如，香港库务局使用「虚拟资产」一词，而香港金管局则采用「加密资产」。

加密资产（Crypto-assets）

根据金融稳定委员会的定义，加密资产是指「主要依靠加密技术和分散式账本或类似技术的私人数字资产」。[2]

尽管它与虚拟资产可互换使用，但加密资产包括NFTs，而后者是加密代币的一类，其不在虚拟资产的范畴内。

加密货币（Cryptocurrencies）

加密货币是一种数字或虚拟货币，以加密技术保护，令其几乎不可能被伪造或双重支付。它隶属于各 (i) 虚拟资产及 (ii) 加密资产。最知名的例子是比特币和以太坊。

其外，我们亦观察到以下几点：–

• 加密货币是基于去中心化的区块链网络和分散式账本技术。

• 它通常是指可互换的硬币或代币（即无法仅通过观察其本身，区分各个同类的硬币）。基于此性质，它们一般被视为虚拟商品。

• 加密资产和加密货币两词经常被交替使用。

• 加密货币的特征是其通常不由任何中央机构发行，使它们理论上不受政府干预或操纵。此为其与CBDC之区别。

然而，实际上，加密货币并非完全不受监管行动的影响。2021年9月，中国人民银行宣布全面禁止所有虚拟货币的相关业务活动，包括兑换虚拟货币及开展虚拟货币相关业务活动的互联网应用。海外虚拟货币交易所不可向中国的投资者提供服务。中国人民银行亦禁止金融机构、支付公司和互联网公司在中国促使虚拟货币的相关业务活动。

稳定币（Stablecoins）

稳定币是加密资产的一种。根据金融稳定委员会和国际结算银行，稳定币的定义分别为「旨在保持相对于特定资产或资产池或一篮子资产之稳定的价值」和「其价值与法定货币或其他资产挂钩的加密货币」。[3]

稳定币可为不同目的设计相应的支持机制。其可大致分为以下几类 (i) 与资产挂钩的稳定币；或 (ii) 基于演算法的稳定币。与资产挂钩的稳定币通常与法定货币、商品（如黄金），或其他金融资产（如证券）挂钩或由其支持。若其与金融资产挂钩，也或可视其为证券代币。

中央银行数字货币（CBDC）

CBDC与稳定币相异，其为「采取数字形式的央行货币，有别于传统储备或结算账户中的余额」。[4]此为以国家记帐单位计价的数字支付工具，由中央银行直接承担。其具有法律地位，因此与加密货币不同（其本质通常为去中心化）。

香港金管局曾探究CBDC的一技术架构，旨在使家庭和企业能更安全地持有和使用CBDC付款。

代币（Tokens）

代币（或密码／数字代币）是实体资产的数字表示，或基于区块链的组织或项目基础上建构之工具。代币可同时具有不同的性质和目的。

其他特点／观察包括：–

• 可于其中嵌入智能合约。

• 用于代币发行的最常用之区块链网络为以太坊（可称之为该区块链网络或在该网络中使用的原生货币）。

• 其通常于区块链规程（即管理创建和使用此类代币的一组规则）下所创建。

• ERC-20成为了用于智能合约上的以太坊区块链以行使代币之最普及的规程。

• 其可以不同的类型呈现––如功能型代币、证券代币以及近期流行的NFTs。

• 需注意NFTs为不可替代的––意味着每个NFT皆可通过适用的已嵌入智能合约之区块链规程以令其「独特」。此外，由于NFTs现阶段尚无标准化的形式，因此需要仔细研究特定的NFT，以确定其性质。

3. 为何需要了解数字资产的不同性质？

该分类有助于理解代币的性质，以便沟通讨论。事实上，数字资产的发行是否受证监会的监管视乎情况而定。

以NFTs为例，考虑到其非标准化的性质，某些NFTs可能具有类似「证券」的特征，因此，发行此类NFTs通常会于香港受到监管。至于其是否会受到监管，不仅需要仔细研究该代币的形式，亦要审视其本质。

当然，监管并未必为一件坏事––若代币构成「证券」，代币持有人作为投资者理应得到额外的保护。另一方面，投资者保护和过度监管之间需作出恰好的平衡。鉴于所涉及之技术性，我们鼓励发行人（尤其是初创公司）向专业人士寻求意见，以了解其的相关法律地位，并就此制定代币发行。

如 阁下有任何发行代币的具体计划，或希望就上述与我们讨论，请随时联系我们的合伙人张源辉律师。

本新闻简讯仅供参考之用。本新闻简讯之内容不构成亦不应被视为法律意见。对于任何因根据或倚赖本文件所载资料所作决定，行动或不行动而引致的损失或损害，史蒂文生黄律师事务所概不负责。

简介

2021年5月，香港与内地就认可和协助跨境破产程序所建立的合作机制(「合作机制」) 正式落实。 同月，最高人民法院制定《关于开展认可和协助香港特别行政区破产程序试点工作的意见》(「最高人民法院意见」)，促进合作机制的实施。

近日于2022年1月25日，深圳市中级人民法院 (「深圳法院」) 在 「(2021) 粤03认港破1号 」一案中批准了全国首个认可和协助香港破产程序的申请 ，是个标志性的判决。

简要事实

森信洋纸有限公司 (「公司」) 在香港注册成立，并于2021年8月进入债权人自动清盘程序。 公司于内地拥有大量资产，包括深圳在内。

为处理公司在内地的资产，清盘人根据最高人民法院意见向香港高等法院 (「高等法院」) 提出申请，请求高等法院向深圳法院发出请求函，请求其认可和协助清盘人。高等法院在Re Samson Paper Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 2151一案中批准清盘人的申请，并向深圳法院发出请求函。

深圳法院的判决

深圳法院首先考虑管辖权的问题，查明深圳是公司在内地的主要资产所在地，因此裁定其对该申请具有管辖权。 深圳法院及后批准了该申请，认可公司在香港的破产程序及清盘人的身份。

要点

随着内地法院认可和协助高等法院委任的清盘人有了首例，加上香港与内地之间紧密的商业联系，我们可预期未来会有越来越多香港清盘人根据合作机制向内地法院请求认可以及协助的申请。

本所洪律师的诉讼团队能协助客户向高等法院提出有关申请，并透过本所跟锦天城律师事务所的联盟，获得内地法院对香港破产程序作出认可和协助。

如有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所诉讼部合伙人洪玉晖律师或高级律师刘嘉熙律师。
本文仅供参考之用。本文之内容不构成亦不应被视为法律意见。对于任何因根据或倚赖本文件所载资料所作决定，行动或不行动而引致的损失或损害，史蒂文生黄律师事务所概不负责。

2022年2月22日至25日，本所合伙人郑炎潘律师﹑林丽嫦律师﹑徐凯怡律师﹑洪玉晖律师及刘嘉熙高级律师作为演讲者和专家小组成员参加了国际律师事务所协会 (Interlaw) 2022 亚洲区域线上会议。今年的主题为 ‘’携手共创成功”，吸引了全球超过500 多名代表参加。

• 合伙人郑炎潘律师 – 归途？税收政策的新方向 (Homeward Bound? A News Direction for Tax Policy)
• 合伙人徐凯怡律师 – 仲裁优势：争议的新视角 (Arbitration on the Ascendancy: A New Perspective on Disputes)
• 合伙人洪玉晖律师及刘嘉熙高级律师 – 数字化和争议 (Digitalization and Disputes)
• 合伙人林丽嫦律师 – 遥距创建包容性的工作场所 (Creating an Inclusive Workplace at a Distance)

2月22日 | 合伙人郑炎潘律师 – 归途？税收政策的新方向

郑律师在税务小组讨论中深入探讨了新冠疫情的影响以及从全球化到国内前沿生产的转变。他讨论了鉴于当前和未来的税收政策，企业重组的需求日益增长，并提到了香港在疫情期间的免税政策。特别是，企业和个人如何在全球和国家层面上需要适应此紧迫的时代。

本所合伙人郑炎潘律师（右上）

2月22日 | 合伙人徐凯怡律师 – 仲裁优势：争议的新视角

随着新的仲裁机构在亚洲开设，仲裁在该地区的受欢迎程度继续上升。徐律师和专家小组一同讨论了这趋势背后的驱动因素以及其如何重塑商业纠纷的文化。

本所合伙人徐凯怡律师（右下）

2月23日 | 合伙人洪玉晖律师及刘嘉熙高级律师 – 数字化和争议

该专家小组透过分享和交流不同法律管辖区的技术解决方案，以保持其领先地位，为客户在新时代的争议解决下提供最大的支援。洪律师和刘律师就网络安全、网络风险管理等议题进行了阐述，并分享了他们在网络欺诈中挽回损失的经验。他们还分享了香港针对网络犯罪和洗钱的“不同意书制度” (Letter of No Consent Regime) 的最新发展。

本所合伙人洪玉晖律师（左上）及刘嘉熙高级律师（上排中间）

2月24日 | 合伙人林丽嫦律师 – 遥距创建包容性的工作场所

作为 Interlaw 多元化、包容性和社区委员会（亚太区）副主席，林律师参与了有关工作模式转变的讨论。该小组还探讨了领导者如何建立有效的工作模式，以通过学习和发展、认可和晋升来提高新时代线上线下相结合工作场所的包容性。

本所合伙人林丽嫦律师（中间第二排）

如阁下有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所郑炎潘律师﹑林丽嫦律师﹑徐凯怡律师或洪玉晖律师。

(English) The Quality Migrant Admission Scheme (“QMAS”) is a points based admission scheme for global talents to apply to settle in Hong Kong without first securing a job offer as normally required in work visa application. The scheme was first introduced in February 2006 with an initial quota of 1,000 applicants.

Following the announcement of the Chief Executive’s 2021 Policy Address, the Hong Kong Government has decided to double the annual quota of the QMAS in 2020 to 4,000 entrants. The objective is to attract more talents to come to Hong Kong and to increase Hong Kong’s economic competitiveness. With the introduction of more professional categories, it is expected that Hong Kong will welcome an influx of applications from different sectors. The Talents List was first drawn up in 2018 and now the list covers 13 professions. The latest addition includes professionals in asset management, and environmental, social and governance. Further, individuals from medical and healthcare sciences, microelectronics, integrated circuit design and arts technology, and the disputes resolution/transaction law industries are also now eligible to apply under the QMAS. Potential entrants from other industries and sectors not covered by the Talent List are still welcome to apply as long as they meet the respective eligibility criteria.

The Immigration Department will prioritise the applications of applicants undertaking research and development work under the Technology Talent Admission Scheme (TechTAS). With the expansion of professional categories under the QMAS, it is expected that the Immigration Department may also provide a fast-track arrangement for eligible individuals to work in Hong Kong.

Certain countries have introduced schemes to attract immigrants from Hong Kong. This no doubt posts a threat to Hong Kong on outflow of talents. The significant increase in the Talents quota to a large extent reveals the Hong Kong Government’s effort to counter that threat. Hong Kong has experienced different challenges in recent years. With the strong resilience of Hong Kong people, Hong Kong usually recovers fast from difficult times. Interested candidates with relevant skills and talents should seize this good opportunity to seriously consider coming to Hong Kong to pursue their career dreams.

Our Immigration Team are on standby to help interested applicants understand the requirements and walk through the application process. Please contact our Partner Willy Cheng or Paralegal Arial Ng (arial.ng@sw-hk.com) for any further enquiries or information.

This newsletter is for information purposes only. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. Stevenson, Wong & Co. will not be liable to you in respect of any special, indirect or consequential loss or damage arising from or in connection with any decision made, action or inaction taken in reliance on the information set out herein.

2022年2月21日, 本所合伙人、诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师受香港税务学会 (TIHK) 邀请，为其专业进修课程「税务顾问应知的仲裁知识——流程、优势和最新进展」担任讲师。

本次网络研讨会旨在让 TIHK 的会员了解仲裁在税务或其他商业纠纷中的好处，并介紹香港仲裁法和最新发展。徐律师先详细向与会者介绍了什么是仲裁以及仲裁的优势, 并特别提到起草有效仲裁协议的注意事项及拥有有效的仲裁条款之重要性。徐律师在会上阐释了仲裁的程序，并通过案例分析分享了商业交易中税务纠纷的可仲裁性，以及仲裁在涉及稅务范畴的收购合并争议中的应用。此外，徐律师亦分享了跨境仲裁的最新进展，和内地与香港对仲裁的支持和司法合作。

徐律师以回答现场提问的方式圆满地结束了是次充满互动性的网上课程，获得了与会者的正面回馈。

如阁下有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师。

(English) In July 2021, the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) handed down its decision in Securities and Futures Commission v Isidor Subotic and Others[1] (“Subotic”).

The Subotic decision contains useful discussions on whether the Hong Kong Court has jurisdiction and may exercise it over overseas defendants of statutory claims commenced by the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) in respect of breaches of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (“SFO”).

Without making a general observation that the SFC can enforce the SFO against overseas offenders, the Subotic decision was, on its specific factual matrix and in respect of the jurisdiction issue, in favour of the SFC.

Given that market participants (and offenders) often operate from out of Hong Kong, the Subotic decision is important to the SFC’s effectiveness as a Hong Kong regulator.

An appeal against the Subotic decision (the jurisdiction issue in particular) is pending the determination of the Court of Appeal.

Meanwhile, however, the Subotic decision remains an integral part of the SFC’s arsenal. On 14 February 2022, the reasonings in Subotic were adopted in SFC v Yik Fong Fong and Others[2], which decision was in favour of the SFC.

Background

In February 2016, an extensive network of traders orchestrated by 6 of the Defendants, including Eastmore Global, Ltd. (“the Eastmore Defendants”), executed manipulative trading orders to pump up the share price of Ching Lee Holdings Limited (stock code: 3728.hk) to 700% above its placing price.

The inflated price was maintained for 7 months, whereupon the shares were dumped onto the market abruptly, causing the share price to plummet by 90%.

The pump-and-dump scheme generated illicit profits of around HK$124.88 million for the Eastmore Defendants and the proceeds of sale was remitted overseas.

An estimate of some 896 market participants suffered an aggregate loss of over HK$101.28 million.

The SFC’s Action against the Eastmore Defendants

The SFC commenced an action in the CFI against, amongst others, the Eastmore Defendants for breach of various sections of the SFO, including conspiracy to do “false trading” (i.e. by creating a false or misleading appearance of “active trading”, and creating and maintaining an artificially inflated price).

Pursuant to section 213 of the SFO, the SFC sought various reliefs against the Eastmore Defendants, including a restoration order (i.e. to restore the market participants to the status quo ante), injunctive reliefs, and damages.

The SFC successfully obtained leave to serve the originating processes out of jurisdiction on the Eastmore Defendants.

Subsequently, the Eastmore Defendants sought to set aside the leave for service out in order to nullify the action against them.

Under Order 11 rule 1(1) of the Rules of High Court, for leave for service out to be granted, the Court must be satisfied that the following requirements are met:-

(1)   There is a good arguable case that the plaintiff’s case falls within one of the “gateways”;

(2)   There is a serious issue to be tried on the merits of the plaintiff’s case;

(3)   Hong Kong is the appropriate forum for the trial.

The 2^nd and 3^rd requirements were not in serious dispute in this case. The main argument for the Eastmore Defendants was that the SFC’s case did not fall within any of the gateways.

The Gateways

The SFC sought reliance on the following three gateways: –

(i)     Tort – “the claim is founded on a tort and the damage was sustained, or resulted from an act committed, within the jurisdiction”

(ii)    Injunction – “an injunction is sought ordering the defendant to do or refrain from doing anything within the jurisdiction”

(iii)   Necessary or proper party – “the claim is brought against a person duly served within or out of the jurisdiction and a person out of the jurisdiction is a necessary or proper party thereto”

(i)      Tort

Having considered authorities from different jurisdictions, the Court distilled the following principles for deciding whether a claim is a tort:-

(1)   There is no universal definition of tort;

(2)   A claim in tort can be created by common law or statute. For those created by statute, it is not necessary for the statutory cause of action to be analogous to a pre-existing common law cause of action in tort;

(3)   Within the same statute, some claims may be in the nature of tort whilst others may not;

(4)   The presence of a “duty” towards person generally or a class of persons is an element of tort;

(5)   If the statute prohibits certain conduct, a breach may result in liability in tort;

(6)   If the statute merely provides that damages are recoverable without regard to the defendant’s intention, negligence or default, it may not be a tort, as the statute does not impose a duty on anyone to act in a particular way;

(7)   A claim in tort is redressible by unliquidated damages but not every statute which creates a liability to pay damages creates a tort; and

(8)   The mere fact that other discretionary remedies (e.g. injunction or declaration) may be available should not alter the characterization of a cause of action as a tort.

The Court considered that the above principles should apply notwithstanding the caveat that the authorities from which they were distilled concerned private plaintiffs who have suffered personal loss (contra. the SFC, which had not personally suffered any loss).

In finding that there was a good arguable case that the SFC’s statutory claim falls within the tort gateway, the Court considered the following factors:-

(1)   Proof of intent on the part of the wrongdoer is required to establish the statutory claim of “false trading”;

(2)   Those who had suffered loss plainly belong to a class of the public that the SFO intends to protect;

(3)   Although civil remedies are available to individual investors, there are circumstances when it would be eminently reasonable for proceedings to be taken by the SFC for the investors’ benefit. The fact that the SFC might bring the action in its own name as the protector of individual market participants (many of whom with relatively small losses) did not undermine the tortious nature of such a claim;

(4)   The fact that section 213 of the SFO also fulfilled public purposes and conferred upon the SFC rights that went further than the purpose of tort and ordinary enforceable civil law rights did not undermine the fact that the conduct sued upon was tortious in nature;

(5)   While the remedies under section 213 were restorative in nature, where the Court has power to make a restorative order, it may, in addition or in substitution, make an order for damages against the defendants; and there was a good arguable case that the measure of damages for tort would apply;

(6)   The fact that the SFO afforded more reliefs than damages was immaterial as a statutory tort did not require a parallel tort with parallel reliefs at common law;

(7)   There were sound policy reasons that a claim under section 213 of the SFO should be regarded as a tort for the purpose of this gateway. A pragmatic and realistic approach should be adopted; and

(8)   The “double actionability rule” required the plaintiff to satisfy the Court that its claim was actionable in tort both in Hong Kong and the place abroad, but if the Court found that the tort had in substance been committed in Hong Kong, the fact that some of the relevant events have happened abroad and the law of the foreign country where such events may have happened were irrelevant, and the Court could wholly disregard the double actionability rule. In this connection, the Court found that although the Eastmore Defendants were resident outside Hong Kong, there was a good arguable case that the conspiracy was in substance committed in Hong Kong. Therefore, the double actionability rule did not apply.

(ii)           Injunction

The SFC sought injunctions against the Eastmore Defendants to (1) freeze their assets; and (2) restrain them from contravening the provisions against false trading. The injunctions sought are wide in scope to restrain the Eastmore Defendants from contravening section 213 of the SFO in any way, anywhere and anytime.

An injunction may be granted if there is an appreciable risk that the defendant would in the future interfere with the plaintiff’s rights. On the other hand, the court would not grant injunctions that are hopelessly wide and ill-defined, and it has no power to restrain conduct outside the jurisdiction.

The Court found that there was a good arguable case that an injunction would be granted against the Eastmore Defendants restraining them from committing further false trading activities in Hong Kong given that the Eastmore Defendant had maintained sufficient connections in Hong Kong and remained capable of conducting further acts in Hong Kong.

The injunction as sought by the SFC may be too wide in geographical scope, as the Hong Kong courts may not grant an injunction to restrain acts not only in Hong Kong but also unspecified “elsewhere”, and the injunction gateway specified that the writ should be one that seeks an injunction to restrain the defendant from doing anything “within the jurisdiction”.

That said, the Court commented further that the SFC did not need to rely on the injunction gateway if the tort gateway was passed. The scope of the injunction can be debated at the trial, and should the SFC need to rely solely on the injunction gateway, leave to serve the Eastmore Defendants out of jurisdiction should still be granted as if the injunction to restrain would be limited to acts within Hong Kong.

(iii)           Necessary or proper parties

The SFC had not relied on this gateway initially when it applied for leave for service out.

Upon the Eastmore Defendants applying to set aside the leave for service, and in case they were successful vis-à-vis the tort and injunction gateways, the SFC additionally referred to the “necessary or proper parties” gateway and asked the Court to grant leave for service out afresh.

The Court noted that the validity of the Writ of Summons had already expired at the time of the decision, and it would be futile to regrant leave for service out without also extending the validity of the writ.

In any event, the Court found that the tort gateway was passed, the original leave for service out was valid, and it was unnecessary to grant leave for service out afresh.

Appeal

In November 2021, the Court granted the Defendants leave to appeal regarding these questions: (1) whether the SFC’s claim is in the nature of torts, and (2) the applicability of authorities on private tort claims to regulatory enforcement actions.

Leave was granted on the basis that the grounds of appeal involved points of general public importance:

(1)   There was an apparent lacuna in the rules regarding service of a writ out of jurisdiction in regulatory enforcement action under section 213 of the SFO; and

(2)   The SFO has extra-territorial effect, such that a decision on appeal will have impact beyond the present case as the SFC may have to serve writs for similar claims out of jurisdiction in future.

Conclusion

Hong Kong is an international financial centre. In this age of globalization and electronic communications, there are policy reasons to facilitate enforcement of the SFO against overseas offenders. The Subotic decision may indicate the Court’s readiness to support this.

On the other hand, the Court traditionally exercises its long-arm jurisdiction with caution. It is noteworthy that English decisions maintain the view that any doubt as to the correct construction of the gateways should be resolved in favour of the foreign defendant. There may also be cases where the policy reasons are less compelling, e.g. the public investors suffered no apparent loss.

Further, it is noted that the Court was not required to apply the “double enforceability rule” in the Subotic case upon finding that the tort had in substance been committed in Hong Kong. It remains theoretically possible for overseas offenders to devise a scheme such that no tort is committed in Hong Kong.

We await the determination of the Court of Appeal and hopefully a comprehensive guideline on when and how SFC may enforce the SFO against overseas offenders.

Please contact our Partners Mr. Osbert Hui or Mr. Dominic Lau for any enquiries or further information.

This newsletter is for information purposes only. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. Stevenson, Wong & Co. will not be liable to you in respect of any special, indirect or consequential loss or damage arising from or in connection with any decision made, action or inaction taken in reliance on the information set out herein.