资产管理人是否谨慎勤勉:裁判标准及构建路径  

Whether Asset Managers Are Prudent and Diligent:Judgment Standards and Construction Paths

作　　者：孙红庆 SUN Hongqing

机构地区：[1]吉林大学法学院

出　　处：《经贸法律评论》2023年第4期108-124,共17页Business and Economic Law Review

摘　　要：如何构建资产管理人谨慎勤勉的司法裁判标准是亟待解决的问题。法律既需要引导和促进受信人谨慎勤勉,保护委信人的信任,也需要激励受信人充分运用自由裁量权。行为标准和司法裁判标准的分野正是法律平衡保护该等法益的设计,也因而使得信义法的谨慎义务具有独特性。基于对我国一线城市近五年相关司法案例的特征与说理论证的梳理,可知我国资产管理人谨慎勤勉的司法裁判标准之构建需求聚焦于私募资管产品,且行为标准与司法裁判标准的关系问题是司法需求上的核心问题。美国以相应起诉标准避免管理人诉累和动辄得咎的政策考量可以参考,谨慎投资人规则中的“谨慎委托规则”以及区分“行为标准”与“司法裁判标准”的商业判断规则值得借鉴。How to construct judicial standards for reviewing asset managers’prudence and diligence is an urgent problem to be solved.The law needs to guide and promote trustees’prudence and diligence in order to protect trustors’trust,while it also needs to encourage trustees to fully utilize their discretion.The divergence between behavioral standards and judicial standards,which makes the duty of prudence in fiduciary law unique,is precisely the design of legal balance to protect these legal interests.Based on an analysis of characteristics and reasoning of relevant judicial cases in China’s first-tier cities in the past five years,it can be concluded that the construction of a judicial standard about asset managers’prudence and diligence in China focuses on private asset management products,and the relationship between behavioral standards and judicial standards is the core issue in judicial requirements.The policy considerations of the United States using corresponding prosecution standards to avoid the burden of litigation and blame can be referred to,while the“prudent delegation rules”in the prudent investor rules and the business judgment rules that distinguish“behavioral standards”and“judicial standards”are worthy of study.

关 键 词：资产管理 信托 商业判断规则 谨慎义务 信义义务 

分 类 号：D922.28[政治法律—经济法学]