Page 36 - CCFA Journal - 8th Issue

合规 Compliance 加中金融

稍微偏题一点——如果你在 40 年前咨询过律师，你会被告知私营企业在中国也是非法的，而且它们的存在也没有法律依
据。事实上，尽管没有得到政府的承认，许多私营企业在整个 1970 年代和 80 年代成立并在灰色地带经营。直到 1988 年
《私营企业暂行规定》的颁布，中国才正式承认私营企业最基本的形式，直到 1994 年《公司法》的颁布，有限责任公司
等现代企业形式才得到法律的充分认可。

在这种情况下，中国将某些法律结构置于灰色地带是有先例的，用以保留解释权，直到他们决定正式承认这种做法为止。
VIE 在这种发展模式中并不是独一无二的。在过去的 22 年里，当一件在法律上如此含糊不清的事件在政府的监管之下继
续存在时，有一个很好的理由来解释为什么会出现这种情况。虽然从外国投资者的角度以及他们在本国熟悉的法律/经营
环境来看，这似乎是反常的，但考虑到中国当前发展阶段的独特特点，这种结构的存在也是合乎情理的。

To go on a slight tangent – if you had consulted with lawyers 40 years ago, you would have been told that private enterprises
were also illegal in the PRC, and that they also had no legal basis for existence. Indeed, despite not being recognized by the
government, many private enterprises formed throughout the 1970’s and 80’s and operated in the gray zone. It was not until the
Tentative Stipulations on Private Enterprises (TSPE) was enacted in 1988 that China formally recognized private enterprises in the
most basic form, and not until the Company Law of 1994 that modern forms of enterprises like Limited Liability company had the
full recognition of law.

In such a way, China has a precedence of leaving certain legal constructs in the gray zone, to retain control over the interpretation,
until they decide to formally acknowledge the practice later on. VIEs are hardly unique from such kind of developmental pattern.
When something that is deemed so legally murky continue to be in existence for the last 22 years, and in plain sight of authorities,
there is a good reason why this has been the case. While it may seem unnatural from the perspective of foreign investors and in
the context of the legal/operating environment that they are familiar in their home countries, it doesn’t mean this construct is an
unnatural one taking into account the characteristics that are unique to China’s current stage of development.

VIE 结构的天壤之别

值得一提的是对 VIE 结构的差异业界并无共识。评论人士倾向于认为 VIE 都是一样的。但读者需要明白重要的一点，那
就是 VIE 必须逐案进行审查。在之前的图表中，我们看到 WFOE 与一家国内运营公司(VIE)签订了一份境内经济合同。这
样做是为了保护资产不落入外资的手中。但如果没有法律要求保护这些资产不被外国人的持有(例如建筑物或工厂)，
WFOE 也可以直接拥有境内资产。在这种情况下，所有权不存在法律上的模糊性。

与其认为 VIE 是二进制结构，不如认为 VIE 的使用属于一个范围更有效。经验法则是，在 VIE 之外、发行人在法律上直
接拥有外国投资者所有权的资产越多，其治理就越好。相反，发行人越是试图在 VIE 内持有关键资产，情况就越糟糕。
因此，有必要根据具体情况考虑每个发行人的 VIE 结构(这在发行人的文件中有所披露)。

Widely varying structures

An important point which is often not discussed enough is just how widely VIE can vary in terms of their structures. There is a
tendency by commentators to talk about VIE as if they are all one and the same. However, it is important for readers to
understand that VIE has to be examined on a case-by-case basis. In the previous diagram, we saw that WFOE has an onshore
economic contract with a domestic operating company (VIE). In this case, this was done to protect the asset from falling under
foreign ownership. However, the WFOE can also own onshore assets outright if there is no legal requirement to shield the asset
from foreigners (e.g. a building or a factory). In such a case, there is no legal ambiguity over ownership.

Rather than thinking about VIE being a binary construct, it’s more useful to think of VIE usage falling under a spectrum. The rule of
thumb is that the more assets of the issuer that are placed outside of a VIE, and in the direct legal ownership of foreign investors,
the better the governance. Conversely, the more that issuers try to hold key assets within the VIE, the worse. Therefore, it is
always necessary to consider each issuer’s VIE structure on a case-by-case basis (and this is disclosed in the issuer’s filing).

例如，我们可以用蔚来汽车在美国证券交易委员会(SEC)提交的文件来说明这一点。请注意，蔚来控股公司是下图中的境
内外商投资企业。在这种情况下，除了一家子公司(北京蔚来网络科技有限公司)外，外商投资企业实际上对其他所有子公
司都有直接股权。这意味着境外投资者合法拥有 WFOE 下的所有资产，除了北京蔚来网络科技有限公司(处于经济合同之
下)。如果我们进一步研究，原因就很清楚了:

“截至 2020 年 12 月 31 存在的 vie 没有任何重大资产或负债。未来，我们希望北京蔚来专注于增值电信服务，包括但不
限于互联网服务、运营我们的网站和我们的移动应用程序，以及持有某些相关牌照。”

For example, we illustrate this with the below SEC filing for electric vehicle maker NIO. Note that Nio Holding Co is the on-shore
WFOE in the below diagram. In this case, the WFOE actually has direct equity interest in all but one subsidiary (Beijing NIO
Network Technology Co). This means offshore investors legally own all of the assets under the WFOE, with the exception of Beijing
NIO Network Technology Co (which is under economic contract). When we examine this further, the reason becomes clear:

“Our VIEs that existed as of December 31, 2020 did not have any material assets or liabilities as of December 31, 2020. In the
future we expect Beijing NIO to focus on value-added telecommunications services, including, without limitation, performing
12
internet services, operating our website and our mobile application as well as holding certain related licenses”

12 Nio 2020 annual SEC filing (Form F-20)
CCFA JOURNAL OF FINANCE August 2022
Page 36 第36页