Court freezes shares are unauthorized transfers of securities companies to discuss the rights of people to lose

Add Date:2015/7/1 Hits:1508 Font Size:S M L BACK
Ms. Sun sued to court and asked Mr. Lin divorce. Court decision to lift bilateral relations of husband and wife, Ms. Sun Lin paid 600,000 yuan. Lin appealed to the Intermediate People's Court. Second instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original verdict. After the legal validity, Ms. Sun filed an application to the court to perform, Lin flight.
During the first trial, the court has been based on Ms. Sun's application, according to Lin at a securities company worth more than 60 million shares were frozen. When the case execution, execute judge found that Mr. Lin had during the second trial, the use of loopholes in the management of securities companies, will be transferred to its sister stock accounts, cash removed. Thus, the Court ruled that securities firms accountable. Securities companies objected to this, that under the "People's Court Supreme People's Court on Several Issues of implementation of the provisions of" the provisions of the relevant units of the receipt of the people's court to assist an enforcement notice, only in unauthorized payments to the debtor or other person Under only liable within the scope of unauthorized payments. Own shares are transferred to the freeze put away, there is only subjective fault, there is no "unauthorized" sense of subjective intent and the objective is to transfer the implementation of behavior rather than paying behavior and should not be held responsible.

Legally, the "unauthorized" contains three elements: the object is a matter unauthorized acts ultra vires, the actor did not obtain permission of the relevant authorities, the behavior of people formed opinions about how to act. Intentional and negligent in the legal sense, they require knowing, predictable behavior on society and others harm. The "unauthorized" for how the behavior, not the behavior of the dangers that the unauthorized behavior of people on how to act consciously, knowingly, but does not require them to produce what kind of behavior have knowingly or foreseeable harm. Therefore, the "unauthorized" intentionally or negligently is not in the legal sense. The present case, the securities company's behavior in line with "unauthorized," the three elements, it should not be without a permission of the relevant departments, the stock transfer to the name of others.

In law, the transfer of possession of the subject matter, the concept is commonly used delivery. The present case, is actually delivered in the legal sense of the transfer of shares possession. The delivery is divided into reality and fiction deliver delivery. Delivery reality refers to the actual delivery of the subject matter to bear, bringing to bear the subject matter is under direct human domination and control. Fiction delivery refers to the right to possession of the subject matter transferred to withstand people, instead of the actual delivery. Although securities firms will stock transferred to accounts by its sister Lin withdraw cash stock behavior does not constitute real delivery, but this behavior has constituted a fiction deliver stock. Securities companies actually have the right to possession of the stock transferred to Mr. Lin's sister, this behavior makes the frozen transfer of restricted stock rights have been restored to full rights, Lin's sister can easily be cashed put away, but not Because there is no right and can not be transferred possession and liquidity. As a professional agency to assist the executor - securities companies because of their significant loopholes in management, resulting in the stock was lightly card for its subjective aspects constitute gross negligence.

In summary, as the executor of the stock freeze assist securities firms, as Mr. Lin card for acts belong to others without pay freeze stock behavior category, which are in violation of the obligation to assist in the execution, and there is gross negligence on the subjective, should be Ms. Sun bear liability for unauthorized payment within range.

Ultimately, the court held that the objection is not established securities companies, ruled responsibility within the scope of securities companies stock value in the illegal transfer of Ms. Sun Lin.

Up: war JDB Wong Lo Kat and the full resolution
Next: Should the case of savings bank card stolen brush liability
© 2005 - 2021 GUANG DONG SHANGDA (FU TIAN) LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved