CSD跨境互联模式和制度安排的比较研究与启示（附英文版）

　　中央证券托管机构（CSD）跨境互联具有便利境外投资者进入中国债券市场、一次性批量引入境外投资者的作用。本文归纳了跨境托管与结算实践中的四种主要模式，分析了各互联模式的优势、不足及风险，系统总结了CSD跨境互联的普适性规律，同时细致梳理了英美法系国家和大陆法系国家与CSD跨境互联相关的法律制度以及中国相关实践情况。最后，本文尝试提出我国CSD跨境互联的基本思路，并从系统建设、优化服务、风险防范、提高效率等角度提出建议。

　　中央证券托管机构  跨境互联  国际比较  金融基础设施  

　　中央证券托管机构（CSD）跨境互联作为高效、安全、专业的金融基础设施安排，对各国便利境外投资者入市、一次性批量引入境外投资者、防范跨境金融风险起到关键作用。近年来，全球投资者持续加大人民币债券投资力度。同时，立足新发展格局，我国将深入推进高水平制度型开放，推动完善金融基础设施和相关制度。这些均对加强CSD跨境互联提出新的更高要求。本文主要从债券市场视角出发，对国际金融市场中CSD跨境互联的主要模式与制度进行比较，并结合我国的实践情况，探索提出相关思考。

　　CSD跨境互联的参与主体

　　当一国的投资者希望投资另一国的证券市场时，往往由于两国存在不同的法律制度、税收政策、发展历史等因素，在跨境托管、结算方面存在阻碍。CSD跨境互联旨在通过各国金融基础设施及中介机构的互联互通打破国界障碍，建立跨境托管、结算的桥梁，实现两国投资者的跨境结算。

　　跨境托管与结算过程主要涉及四类典型机构，包括CSD、国际中央证券托管机构（ICSD）1、全球托管行和当地代理人（见表1）。

　　CSD跨境互联的主要模式与案例分析

　　纵观各国金融市场，CSD跨境互联是推动金融市场开放的重要环节与保障。国际清算银行（BIS）于1995年发布的跨境结算专题报告《跨境证券结算研究》（Cross-border securities settlements）总结了证券市场跨境互联最常见的五种模式。本文针对各国CSD/ICSD等跨境互联实践，尝试对四种典型模式进行进一步提炼、比较与分析，并将资金账户、证券账户的开立与资金流、证券流抽象体现在模式图中。

　　（一）模式一：CSD/ICSD直联

　　1．模式简介

　　通过境内CSD或跨国性的ICSD，例如欧清银行（Euroclear）或明讯银行（Clearstream），与境外CSD进行直联，分别成为对方的结算参与人，从而实现异地投资的互联互通（见图1）。

　　2．相关案例

　　（1）美国DTCC（CSD-CSD直联）

　　美国证券存管结算公司（DTCC）负责为美国债券市场提供统一的登记、托管、结算等金融基础设施服务。在其开展国际业务的过程中，主要采用两种跨境互联模式。

　　第一种模式被称为“入站互联”（in-bound），即他国CSD在DTCC旗下的美国托管信托公司（DTC）设立证券账户，成为DTC的外籍参与人2。在这种模式中，他国CSD被称为“投资人CSD”，DTC被称为“发行人CSD”。现有外籍参与人主要分为两种类型：一类是提供券款对付（DVP）结算服务的CSD，如加拿大证券托管公司；另一类仅可进行纯券过户，包括英国、日本、新加坡等国的CSD与明讯等ICSD。

　　第二种模式被称为“出站互联”（out-bound），即DTC在他国CSD设立证券账户，成为对方的外籍参与人。目前，DTC“出站互联”的互联机构主要是明讯、瑞士SIX SIS Ltd及加拿大证券托管公司。在这些“出站互联”中，只有与加拿大证券托管公司的互联允许以加拿大元作为结算货币，另两个互联仅为纯券过户。

　　（2）欧清银行模式I（CSD-ICSD直联）

　　投资者在欧清银行开户后，即可通过欧清银行与多国CSD实现对接，进行跨境结算与跨境担保品管理。欧清银行与其他国家CSD进行直接跨境互联的模式可分为直接互联模式与独立账户模式。

　　在直接互联模式下，欧清银行在当地CSD开立混同账户，作为账户的名义持有人，账户混同记载欧清银行结算会员及其客户在当地所持有的证券资产。

　　在独立账户模式下，由欧清银行为其结算会员以最终受益人的名义在当地CSD开立单一账户，独立记载每一最终受益人在当地持有的证券资产。

　　3．优缺点与风险

　　通过CSD进行直联的优势在于减少了跨境结算链条中的中介层级与数量，各国客户在基本不改变结算习惯的情况下完成跨境交易，是较为简洁、成本低廉的对接方式。其缺点在于：一是只能解决在两个国家/地区之间的跨境交易结算；二是与全球托管行或当地代理人提供的丰富金融服务相比，其服务相对单一。

　　与CSD相比，通过ICSD进行跨境直联的优势在于：一是为客户提供了一个统一的接入口，降低了成本；二是内部结算以及桥式结算的收费通常低于当地代理人收费；三是可以为客户提供较为高效的结算服务，包括日终批处理机制、日间证券借贷服务等。其风险在于：一是ICSD内部结算的规则和运作程序常与其所连接市场的规则和程序存在较大差异；二是ICSD内部结算中的重置成本可能更高，未结算合同的信用风险敞口更大；三是ICSD之间的桥式连接一旦发生结算失败，可能引发连锁反应。

　　（二）模式二：CSD通过全球托管行互联

　　1．模式简介

　　全球托管行一般受全球资产所有人和管理人之托保管客户的资产，并简化在多个市场投资的流程，其方法是提供单一的结算和资产服务门户，集中的客户服务和综合报告。在该安排下，客户无须与每个市场的本土托管行对接，而是通过一家中央全球托管行作为“一站式商店”（见图2）。

　　值得说明的是，托管行的参与并不意味着CSD互联必然采用多级托管、间接持有的模式，在实践中根据各国的法律法规以及市场机构、资产所有人和资产管理人的实际要求等，也可采取直接持有模式来实现跨境互联。

　　2．相关案例

　　（1）全球托管行

　　全球托管行往往通过其二级托管人网络提供服务，二级托管人网络可由外部二级托管人和自有二级托管人组成。全球托管行必须有强大的网络管理功能，以确保合理选择、指定和实时监控其全部的二级托管人。其客户包括超国家组织和主权国家、央行、商业银行、保险公司、养老金管理者、企业等。

　　（2）明讯银行

　　托管客户在明讯卢森堡3处开立证券托管账户，所托管的证券既可以是其自营的证券，也可以是客户的证券。明讯卢森堡并不真正托管这些证券，而是委托各国的托管机构办理托管事宜，这些被委托的托管机构还要在各国CSD处开立证券托管账户并进行最终托管。在整个业务链条中，明讯银行仅仅是其中的一个环节，其业务操作的及时性和准确性往往受制于上下游的环节能否准确和及时。

　　同时，尽管各项业务（如税收业务、发行人服务等）的基本原理相同，但不同国家往往有不同的做法和处理流程，因此在实际操作过程中还需遵循投资国的法律制度要求。在银行间债券市场，明讯银行暂未实现直联，而是通过部分全球托管行间接参与。近年来，为积极探索更高效、便捷的互联模式，明讯银行也开始与我国CSD合作，致力于共同推动全球投资者通过银行间债券市场直接投资的全球通（CIBM Direct）模式入市（参见模式四），未来全球通模式将大幅提升全球投资者的入市效率。

　　3．优缺点与风险

　　CSD通过全球托管行互联的优势在于：一是可利用全球托管行遍布全球的工作网络为境外投资者提供一个统一的接入口以及统一标准的服务；二是全球托管行能够为客户提供货币转换服务，减轻客户管理多种货币头寸的压力，同时也可提供其他金融服务。

　　该模式的缺点在于：第一，作为商业银行，全球托管行与各国CSD的功能存在差异，在对接不同CSD过程中增加了业务层级，提升了整个体系的复杂性，增加了风险；第二，全球托管行模式收费增加，提高了投资者的交易成本；第三，全球托管行模式采用的多级托管制度在不同国家的法律框架下存在差异，一旦发生纠纷，容易产生法律规则上的冲突，损害投资者权益。

　　该模式的风险在于：一是在多级托管模式下，非居民面临托管风险；二是信息穿透不足，监管难度大；三是全球托管行服务可能带来风险4。

　　（三）模式三：CSD通过当地代理人互联

　　1．模式简介

　　境外投资者在当地代理人处开户，通过当地代理人参与当地CSD跨境结算等相关业务。当地代理人通常是当地CSD的直接参与者。根据《跨境证券结算研究》报告，在跨境股票交易结算方面，当地代理人方式是最为常见的一种对接方式（见图3）。

　　2．相关案例：欧清银行模式II

　　除了上述与各国CSD互联模式（欧清银行模式I），欧清银行还可通过其在当地的代理机构进行互联。该模式由欧清在当地代理人（当地代理人需为当地CSD的结算会员）处开立混同账户，欧清银行作为名义持有人，账户混同记载欧清结算会员及其客户在当地所持有的证券资产。

　　以欧清英国和国际（EUI）为例，目前与EUI实现间接互联的国家包括奥地利、比利时、卢森堡、丹麦、芬兰、法国、德国、意大利、荷兰、挪威、葡萄牙、西班牙和瑞典等国。

　　3．优势与不足

　　CSD通过当地代理人互联的优势在于可充分发挥当地代理人的作用；其风险视各国所采取的托管模式而定——在直接持有模式下，不承担额外风险，且当地代理人更加熟悉该地区的法律法规，较为高效、便捷；在间接持有模式下，其风险与全球托管行模式类似。

　　（四）模式四：通过当地结算代理行直接参与

　　1．模式简介

　　在实践中，以中国为代表的部分新兴市场经济国家基于后发优势和先进的信息科技，集合国际市场各种模式的优势，结合本国实际推出更为高效、安全的互联模式，即境外投资者直接参与模式。在该模式下，境外投资者可选择不通过CSD互联，而是直接在投资国/地区的CSD开户，或通过当地结算行成为他国CSD的参与者。我国主要采取第二种直接参与模式，境外投资者在入市过程中引入结算代理行作为重要环节（见图4）。

　　2．典型案例：我国银行间市场全球通模式

　　境外投资者直接投资我国银行间债券市场的全球通模式即为该模式的代表5，这也是我国银行间债券市场开放的主要渠道。数据表明，各国央行等“三类机构”及各类大型金融机构较倾向于通过全球通模式投资中国债券市场。其中在结算代理人环节，央行类机构可以根据自身需要灵活选择中国人民银行上海总部或中国各结算代理行作为其结算代理人，进而在银行间市场的前、后台开户，开展投资业务，并由CSD完成债券登记、托管、结算与付息兑付。

　　基于对该模式的不断探索与完善，中央结算公司作为中国债券市场重要金融基础设施和债券市场开放主要门户，近年来推进与欧清银行、明讯银行等ICSD的直联合作，持续探索金融基础设施跨境支持澳门等境外债券市场发展，受到了境外投资者的广泛认可。在高效、完备的金融基础设施体系支持下，我国债券市场开放稳步快速前行，在实践中形成以中央登记确权和加强穿透式监管为特征的互联制度安排，辅以灵活的多级服务与合作方式，确保跨境互联在安全、便捷、高效方面的良好效果，成为国际市场典范。

　　3．优势与风险

　　通过当地结算代理人直接参与模式的操作高效迅捷、法律关系清晰、投资者权益完整，在保障穿透式监管实现的同时，为境外投资者提供了多元化服务。CSD提供证券的登记、托管、结算等基础服务，结算代理行则为其下游中介服务机构或投资者提供多元化服务，各类机构在功能方面分工协作，在业务形态方面相互配合。这种制度安排在确保业务依法合规的同时，可满足投资者对多种类型服务的差异化需求。从结算效率来看，由于采用直接持有模式，通过全球通入市的境外投资者结算周期主要为T+1日，部分结算实现T+0日，在各类模式中结算效率最高。相较而言，其他各种模式（含债券通模式）虽致力于缩短结算周期，但在实践中结算周期普遍为T+2日、T+3日。从境外投资者参与我国债券市场情况来看，其大多偏好通过全球通模式入市。据中央结算公司的公开数据，截至2021年11月末，境外投资者通过全球通模式持有债券规模近2.7万亿元，占比约为75%。全球通作为开放主渠道，得到全球投资者的广泛认可。

　　同时，通过结算代理行入市的境外投资者所面临的结算风险与本地投资者相似，不承担额外的跨境互联风险。但在操作过程中，应防范结算代理人代理业务操作不当以及各方系统互联不畅等风险。

　　CSD跨境互联的国际经验归纳

　　从国际经验来看，CSD跨境互联作为各国证券市场开放的重要基础性机制安排，在实践中得到了广泛应用，根据各国模式选择情况与发展趋势，可以得到以下几点启示。

　　第一，CSD互联模式应遵循市场发展规律，探索安全、高效、便捷的互联模式。当前各类模式的风险主要来自多级托管、间接持有，这是由各国历史上形成的路径依赖、利益固化等多种原因导致的。但在金融危机之后，国际市场对信息穿透的重视程度普遍有所加强。因此，应提倡在穿透式监管的基础上探索多元化的互联模式，将CSD、ICSD、结算代理行、托管行等机构纳入不同环节，从而为投资者提供系列服务。

　　第二，CSD互联模式的选择要立足国情，遵从本国法律安排。从国际上看，各国受到路径依赖与本国国情差异的影响，形成了多元化的CSD跨境互联模式与框架。在互联模式选取的过程中，要充分认识到境外模式背后的历史成因，选取符合我国国情的互联方案，避免生搬硬套可能带来的规则不匹配等风险。

　　第三，CSD互联模式需构建完备的配套制度与措施。随着债券跨境交易日渐频繁以及境内外主管机构不断加强监管，未来需进一步完善CSD的配套制度建设，构建先进的跨境结算托管系统与结算风险管理机制，既保证交易的安全性，加强对金融风险的监管和防范，又提升CSD的服务质量，提高境外投资者入市的便利性。

　　各国CSD互联的托管与法律制度安排比较

　　（一）CSD互联的托管制度安排

　　托管制度是证券市场运行的基础与核心制度，前述跨境互联各类模式的关键环节也在于托管制度安排。目前全球证券市场托管模式主要包括一级托管模式与多级托管模式。

　　因纸质化发行、路径依赖等特定历史原因，目前有一些国家在跨境互联的过程中采用多级托管、间接持有模式。在这种模式下，客户与其委托的证券托管机构之间发生法律关系，该托管机构负责对投资者的证券账户进行维护和清算交收；托管机构再以自己的名义与CSD、发行人发生法律关系。学者和业界指出，这种间接持有模式损害了投资者行使其权利的能力。国际货币基金组织（IMF）在明讯卢森堡评估报告中曾指出，明讯卢森堡对间接客户或分级客户（tiered participants）既没有为其开立账户，也没有相应的识别程序，可能会带来风险6。

　　在总结国际经验的基础上，后发国家或新兴市场更倾向于选择安全、高效、透明且法律关系更加清晰的一级托管模式。在一级托管模式下，CSD履行证券集中登记、存管、结算等职能，为参与证券交易的所有投资者开立证券账户，保管实际投资者持有的证券，在证券交易结算时直接为投资者办理证券过户。现代互联网条件和无纸化交易则更好地契合了该模式在效率、透明、安全方面的优势。目前，选择一级托管模式的国家和地区包括澳大利亚、芬兰、捷克、瑞典等。

　　（二）CSD互联的法律制度安排

　　由于各国法律法规在证券的托管模式、权属关系等方面存在较大差异，在跨境互联过程中法律冲突往往不可避免，而在多级托管、间接持有模式下，复杂的权属关系更易造成风险。笔者尝试梳理并对比了主要国家、地区关于CSD互联的相关法律制度安排。

　　1．英美法系

　　英美法系国家主要包括美国、英国、新加坡等，其CSD相关法律制度主要为市场交易规则和自律制度，但也有国家在制定法中有所涉及，如美国《统一商法典》、新加坡《证券和期货法》等。

　　（1）在跨境冲突时管辖法院的选择

　　英美法系国家大多要求CSD的外籍参与人接受本国法院的司法管辖。美国《关于接纳非美国机构作为直接托管参与人的政策声明》明确规定，其他国家的CSD申请在DTC开立证券账户的前提条件，包括要求该国主要证券监管机构与美国证券交易委员会（SEC）提前达成双边谅解备忘录，并承诺在发生跨境法律冲突时由美国法院进行司法管辖。

　　部分国家在有争议时承认他国法院的司法管辖权，但也保留一定的灵活性。例如新加坡规定，当牵涉到证券清算破产程序时，外国法院所作出的任何针对新加坡CSD的判决都需要通过新加坡法院并在新加坡执行，且在某些情况下新加坡法院可以不予承认和执行。

　　（2）在跨境冲突时准据法的选择

　　对于准据法的选择，各国之间存在差异。美国采用“相关中间人所在地法”，其《统一商法典》规定了一系列以直接中间人所在地法作为准据法的事项7。英国则采用“物之所在地法”作为准据法。

　　2．大陆法系

　　大陆法系国家主要包括德国、法国等欧盟国家以及日本等。

　　（1）在跨境冲突时管辖法院的选择

　　总体来看，大陆法系国家大多约定本国法院享有管辖权。例如日本CSD规定，当涉及外国间接账户管理机构时，东京地方法院将作为专属管辖法院；作为法国CSD的欧清法国规定，由法国承担司法管辖及与资产保护最相关的管辖职责。

　　此外，也有国家采用自愿原则和协商一致原则，如明讯卢森堡规定，在发行国际债券时，发行人可通过法律意见书的形式自行确定发行管辖权的选择。

　　（2）在跨境冲突时准据法的选择

　　对于准据法的选择，欧盟国家多采取“最相关地原则”，即适用相关市场所在地、相关账户所在地、注册地等当地法律。在最相关地原则不能解决法律冲突时，各方也通过协商或者在事前进行审查出具法律意见等形式确定适用的法律。例如明讯卢森堡规定在“出站互联”等情形下，适用当地市场的相关规则。但法国规定，在法国境内直接中间人处开立的证券账户的质押适用法国法，无论账户中是否有非法国发行人发行的证券。同时，法国冲突法律规定，资产保护制度由账户管理人所在地的法律决定。

　　日本则对域外法律适用范围进行限定，对于中国香港、韩国、卢森堡、马来西亚、英国、美国等涉及证券当地保管的事项由符合各国（地区）法律制度的当地保管机构的保管合约或海外CSD的规则决定。

　　3．中国实践

　　传统法理学认为中国属于大陆法系，但在商事法律和金融法律领域，我国法律也兼具英美法的部分特点，从而形成了中国特色社会主义法律体系。近年来，随着人民币国际化进程持续推进，我国金融业对外开放步伐不断加快，在对标国际的同时立足国情，不断出台创新举措。与此同时，我国配套的法律法规体系尚待完善，在实践中遇到的诸多问题仍有赖于立法以及司法解释来进一步明确。

　　（1）在跨境冲突时管辖法院的选择

　　在证券跨境纠纷管辖法院的确定方面，《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（以下简称“民事诉讼法”）以及最高人民法院司法解释对于涉外民商事诉讼管辖进行了一般性规定，我国尚未根据跨境证券业务出台针对性的规则。其中，对涉外合同或证券财产权益纠纷专属管辖的案件，民事诉讼法第二百六十五条明确由中国法院管辖，且依据第三十三条、第二百六十六条，在专属管辖案件中，除非双方协议选择仲裁，否则一方或双方选择境外法院的约定无效。依据相关司法解释，对非专属管辖的其他涉外证券纠纷，可采用约定诉讼管辖，双方当事人可以书面协议选择与争议有实际联系的外国法院管辖8。随着上海金融法院与北京金融法院相继成立，管辖案件范围逐步扩大，未来我国金融法院将在跨境证券纠纷的裁决中扮演更加重要的角色。

　　（2）在跨境冲突时准据法的选择

　　在涉外证券纠纷的准据法选择方面，《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》分别从与有价证券有最密切联系的法律、协议选择适用法律与侵权行为地法律方面予以概括性规定9。当发生证券违约纠纷时，允许当事人协议选择合同适用法律，若无选择则适用履行义务最能体现该合同特征的一方当事人经常居所地法律或者其他与该合同有最密切联系的法律。当发生侵权行为时，一般需要适用侵权行为地法律，但当涉及我国证券的侵权行为发生后，当事人也可协议适用中国法律。此外，立法机关也意识到解决跨境证券相关问题的紧迫性，最新修订的《中华人民共和国证券法》第二条规定，境外证券发行和交易活动“扰乱中华人民共和国境内市场秩序，损害境内投资者合法权益的，依照本法有关规定处理并追究法律责任”。在仲裁领域，我国已加入《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》，在协商一致的准据法指引下，获胜方可获得不同条约签署国司法机关对仲裁结果的承认与执行。近年来，我国也在提升跨境证券纠纷裁决的国际化水平，包括出台《上海市推进国际金融中心建设条例》，要求上海金融仲裁机构“依据法律、法规和国际惯例完善金融仲裁规则，提高金融仲裁专业水平和国际化程度”等。

　　（三）总结与借鉴

　　从托管制度来看，穿透式监管、一级托管是符合市场发展规律的制度安排，实践中得到国际市场的广泛关注。我国银行间债券市场基于后发优势形成的“中国模式”，得到了境内外投资者的认可。未来应继续坚持一级托管、直接持有的直联模式，维护市场基本架构的完整性，保障投资者权益。同时，在互联中还应对接国际市场，保持灵活兼容性。

　　从法律制度来看，签订双边或多边协议进行国际合作、实行互联互通是国际上的普遍做法，我国也付诸实践。例如中央结算公司等国家金融基础设施持续与国际同业机构合作，探索多元兼容、安全高效的跨境互联解决方案，近年来陆续与明讯银行、欧清银行等ICSD签署战略合作备忘录；2020年与新加坡交易所在上海—新加坡全面合作理事会上签署合作备忘录。下一步应借鉴国际经验，注重维护国家主权、尊重当事人意志，在准据法方面完善冲突规则，合理确定适用法律的原则与规则；在管辖法院方面积极鼓励与推动境外机构认可中国司法判决，选择中国本土金融法院、仲裁机构作为裁判和仲裁地点。

　　启示及建议

　　（一）推进CSD跨境互联应有清晰的思路

　　通过总结各国CSD跨境互联模式与经验可以发现，高效透明、功能完善是债券市场发展的根本规律。在我国扩大对外开放战略背景下，CSD跨境互联归根结底是为了更好服务于我国更高水平对外开放的大局。进一步来看，应在与国际接轨的同时，充分立足国情，在坚持主场原则、穿透式监管的前提下，不断创新、丰富和完善境外投资者入市服务，推动构建多方协调的良好生态环境。

　　第一，既对标国际，也坚持“主场原则”，不断打造、完善中国范本。我国银行间债券市场在建立伊始，即通过加强顶层设计，在充分借鉴国际先进经验的基础上，结合本国实际情况，构建了科学、高效、安全的现代化登记、托管、结算制度体系。相关模式与制度安排为我国成为全球第二大债券市场提供了坚强保障，并在长期跨境互联过程中获得了境外ICSD、CSD的认可，从而为国际金融市场发展提供了中国范本。面对日益复杂的国际形势，我国债券市场开放进程将面临诸多新的挑战，在积极对接国际规则的同时，应始终坚持制度自信，推动中国标准走向国际。

　　第二，牢牢把控金融市场开放中的各类金融风险。对于我国债券市场开放过程中CSD互联模式的选择，必须以风险可控、金融稳定为必要前提。与全球主要发达国家以间接持有托管模式为主的名义持有人（Nominee）制度相比，我国在长期实践中发展起来并行之有效的直接持有模式，法律关系非常清晰，在制度明确的前提下，监管者能够实施穿透式监管且不存在争议。

　　第三，完善多级服务，实现多方合作共赢。在开放与互联过程中，一方面，要以有利于国家利益为前提，达到金融服务实体经济的根本要求，避免走部分西方国家和发展中国家在金融市场开放中所走的弯路；另一方面，在债市开放过程中，要按照合作共赢的思路选择合理的开放模式。注重探索与全球托管行、明讯银行和欧清银行等ICSD的合作模式，尊重、维护通过境外中介进入境内的海外投资者利益。

　　（二）对具体举措的建议

　　一是在开放互联中坚持穿透式监管，切实保障国家金融安全与投资者利益。在金融全球化背景下，资金全球化流动与资产配置越来越频繁，我国应充分吸取发展中国家在开放中的各种教训，切实加强穿透式监管，确保账本清晰、透明，为国家金融安全与投资者利益提供保障。在实践中，具体建议为：一是在坚持一级托管与穿透式监管制度的基础上，支持境外投资者通过结算代理人直接在境内CSD开户（包括资金账户和证券账户），或由境外投资者通过ICSD批量在境内CSD开户，由此为主管部门掌握底层投资者信息提供保障；二是在我国近年来推出的同一境外主体下合格境外机构投资者（QFII）、人民币合格境外机构投资者（RQFII）机制以及直接入市渠道下的债券“非交易过户”机制的基础上，可适当探讨债券账户的分层管理，明确区分法人类账户与非法人产品账户，从而在便利境外投资者入市的同时，使账户权利与账户主体法律地位相匹配，理顺跨境互联中各方权利义务关系，切实保障投资者利益。

　　二是完善跨境互联金融基础设施功能体系，提升跨境互联安全性与效率。一方面，应构建先进的跨境结算托管系统与高效、安全的跨境转托管体系，建立跨市场、多产品的统一登记托管体系，注重提供多功能、跨市场、国际化的担保品管理服务与全产品谱系的金融估值功能，逐步拓展、完善金融信息等综合服务领域，为跨境互联提供强大的基础设施条件，在对接国际规则的同时推动境外投资者选择境内法院、仲裁机构作为跨境法律纠纷的裁判、仲裁地点。另一方面，应进一步加强规范化、标准化的跨境互联系统建设，提升境外投资者入市效率。关注境外市场投资者参与中国市场的便利性问题，通过规范统一使用环球银行金融电信协会（SWIFT）报文标准、高效接入人民币跨境支付系统（CIPS）、完善境外客户服务系统和门户网站、提供多语言服务功能等一系列举措，不断提高金融基础设施国际化服务水平。

　　三是“入站互联”与“出站互联”并重，助力人民币国际化与“一带一路”建设。在“引进来”方面，应推动全球通开放互联主渠道的广泛应用。实践证明，全球通模式在助力我国债券市场崛起为全球第二大债券市场、保障债券市场有序开放方面发挥了重要作用，后续应持续完善。如可推进“一带一路”建设中基础设施的联通和资金的融通，探索与沿线国家CSD互联互通，助力搭建资金流和信息流的桥梁。在“走出去”方面，应坚持制度自信，提倡使用全球通模式与理念，通过科学有效、灵活兼容的CSD跨境互联安排，为各类金融机构开展“一带一路”沿线国家和地区的海外证券投资提供有力支持。在双向开放方面，可依托自贸区（港）先行先试，按照“交易前台多元化、托管后台一体化”的国际经验构建人民币债券离岸市场，由境内金融基础设施为人民币离岸债券市场提供登记托管服务，进一步丰富人民币债券市场CSD跨境互联的模式与场景。在离岸债券制度规则层面，也应注重既立足国情，又对接国际规则，从而在跨境互联合作中掌握主动权，并吸引全球投资者广泛参与。（本文为中央结算公司中债研发中心“债券市场登记托管结算问题研究”课题的部分研究成果）

　　注：

　　1．国内外学界和业界也将其译为“中央证券存管机构”，以示与市场托管（custody）机构的区别。

　　2．外籍参与人在使用此模式与DTC进行跨境互联时，需满足前置性要求：该外籍参与人的主要证券监管机构须与美国证券交易委员会提前达成双边谅解备忘录，并同意双方之间的互联协议在必要时可根据美国国内相关法律法规的变化而进行调整。

　　3．明讯卢森堡（Clearstream Banking Luxembourg ， CBL）是明讯集团的子公司，与明讯法兰克福分别负责卢森堡、德国国内的证券托管，同时明讯卢森堡亦是ICSD，负责国际范围内的证券托管。

　　4．全球托管行通常会向其客户提供流动性，旨在减少由于证券交付失败和延迟收入支付而导致的资金结算风险，这些服务通常涉及客户现金账户的暂时借记和贷记。然而，全球托管行向客户提供的流动性额度会根据各种情况发生变化，如果客户事前未被及时通知，则在实际操作中可能会面临巨大的流动性风险。此外，如果客户误解这些借贷的临时性质，可能会低估其对交易对手和证券发行人的信用风险。

　　5．根据2010年人民银行发布的《关于境外人民币清算行等三类机构运用人民币投资银行间债券市场试点有关事宜的通知》，境外央行和港澳人民币清算行“可直接向中央国债登记结算有限责任公司申请开立债券账户，向全国银行间同业拆借中心申请办理债券交易联网手续”，但在实践中后者相对较少。

　　6．参见IMF在2017年对明讯卢森堡开展的金融市场基础设施原则履行情况评估，访问地址为https：//www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2017/08/28/Luxembourg-Financial-Sector-Assessment-Program-Detailed-Assessment-of-Observance-Assessment-45209，访问时间：2021年12月。

　　7．《统一商法典》规定，以下事项以直接中间人所在地法作为准据法：一是从证券中间人处获得的证券权；二是证券中间人及权利所有人基于证券权产生的权利和义务；三是判断证券中间人对向证券权提出不利主张的权利人是否负有义务；四是判断能否向从证券中间人处获得证券权或者从权利所有人处购买证券权或证券权中的权益的人提出不利主张。

　　8．《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》第五百三十一条：涉外合同或者其他财产权益纠纷的当事人，可以书面协议选择被告住所地、合同履行地、合同签订地、原告住所地、标的物所在地、侵权行为地等与争议有实际联系地点的外国法院管辖。

　　9．参见《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第三十九条、第四十一条、第四十四条。

　　参考文献

　　[1]国际统一私法协会． 中介化证券立法指引——关于日内瓦证券公约原则与规则的执行[S]． 2019．

　　[2] 闫彦明，马隽卿． 国际化视角看“结算”完善我国证券市场结算体系[J]． 当代金融家，2021（8）：3．

　　[3]支付结算体系委员会/国际清算银行、国际证监会组织技术委员会． 金融市场基础设施原则（中国人民银行支付结算司，译）[M]． 北京：中国金融出版社， 2013．

　　[4]中央国债登记结算有限责任公司． 债券托管结算业务（第五次修订版）[M]． 北京：经济科学出版社， 2016．

　　◇ 本文原载《债券》2022年1月刊

　　◇ 作者：中央结算公司上海总部研发部  阮立遥  闫彦明

　　◇ 责任编辑：刘颖  印颖

　　Comparative Analysis on and Implications from Models and Arrangements of Cross-border CSD Links

　　Ruan Liyao， Yan Yanming

　　Abstract

　　The cross-border central securities depository （CSD） link could facilitate access to China’s bond market and help reach out to a large number of foreign investors at one time． This paper sets out four main models in cross-border custody and settlement practices by analyzing their advantages， disadvantages and risks． It also reviews related legal arrangement in the common law and civil law systems， as well as relevant practices in China． Finally， this paper seeks to propose a basic plan for the cross-border CSD link in China， and puts forward suggestions from the perspectives of structural arrangements， service optimization， risk prevention and efficiency improvement．

　　Keywords

　　CSD， cross-border link， international comparison， financial market infrastructure

　　As an efficient and secure financial market infrastructure （FMI） arrangement， cross-border CSD link plays a key role in facilitating foreign access to a domestic financial market， reaching out to a large number of foreign investors at one time， and preventing financial risks． In recent years， global investors have continued to grow their investment in RMB bonds． At the same time， China works to continue its opening-up and improve FMI arrangements while pursuing the new development pattern． These have created new and higher demands on strengthening cross-border CSD link． From the perspective of the bond market， this paper compares models and arrangements used in cross-border CSD links， and tries to find relevant implications for China．

　　Participants in CSD Cross-Border Link

　　Investment into a foreign securities market is often impeded by obstacles in custody and settlement due to different legal systems， tax policies， market evolution and so on． Cross-border CSD link rises in response to facilitate custody and settlement by connecting FMIs and intermediaries in different countries．

　　The cross-border custody and settlement process mainly involves four types of entities， that is， CSDs， international central securities depositories （ICSD）1， global custodians and local agents （see Table 1）．

　　Main Models and Case Study of Cross-border CSD Link

　　Cross-border CSD link is an important part and guarantee to promote the opening-up of financial markets． In 1995， Bank for International Settlements （BIS） prepared a special report on cross-border settlement - Cross-border Securities Settlements， which summarizes the five most common models of cross-border link in the securities market． Built on cross-border link practices （such as CSD/ICSD） in various markets， this paper tries to compare and analyze four typical models， and plots the cash account， the securities account， the capital flow and securities flow in the charts．

　　i． Model I： CSD/ICSD direct link

　　1． Overview

　　Through local CSDs or transnational ICSDs （such as Euroclear and Clearstream）， a non-resident could settle its trade through direct access to overseas CSD and act as a settlement participant （see Chart 1）．

　　2． Case study

　　（1） US DTCC （CSD-CSD direct link）

　　Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation （DTCC） is an American FMI service provider that provides registration， custody and settlement services for the US bond market． It uses two models in international business．

　　The first is the “in-bound” link． CSDs of other countries set up securities accounts with DTCC’s subsidiary， Depository Trust Company （DTC）， and become foreign participants2 of DTC． In this model， CSDs of other countries are the “investor CSD” while DTC is the “issuer CSD”． Existing foreign participants could act as CSDs that provide delivery versus payment （DVP） settlement services， such as the Canadian Depository for Securities Limited （TMX CDS）， or enable only free-of-payment （FOP） transfers， like the CSDs of the UK， Japan， Singapore and ICSDs such as Clearstream．

　　The second is the “out-bound” link． DTC sets up securities accounts with foreign CSDs and become a foreign participant in the local market． This model is now used with Clearstream， SIX SIS Ltd of Switzerland and TMX CDS． Among these “out-bounds” links， only the link with TMX CDS allows settlement in CAD， while the other two enable only FOP transfers．

　　（2） Euroclear Model I （CSD-ICSD direct link）

　　After opening an account with Euroclear， investors can access CSDs of many countries through Euroclear for cross-border settlement and cross-border collateral management． The cross-border direct link between Euroclear and CSDs of other countries can be direct link or link via a segregated account structure．

　　In terms of a direct link， Euroclear opens an omnibus account as the nominee with a local CSD． The account records the securities held by the settlement members of Euroclear and their customers in the local market in an omnibus way．

　　If linking via a segregated account structure， Euroclear opens a segregated account with the local CSD for its settlement member in the name of the ultimate beneficiary， which is used for separately recording the securities held by each ultimate beneficiary in the local market．

　　3． Advantages， disadvantages and risks

　　The advantage of a direct link through CSD lies in the reduction of the tiers and the number of intermediaries． Customers could finalize cross-border transactions without changing their settlement habits． Thus， this is a relatively simple and low-cost link． Its disadvantages are as follows： first， it can only settle transactions between two jurisdictions； second， it could provide fewer services compared to the wealth of financial services offered by global custodians or local agents．

　　The cross-border direct link via ICSDs offers the following advantages over CSDs． First， ICSDs offer access to multiple markets through a single gateway at lower cost． Second， the fees charged by the ICSDs for an internal settlement or a settlement via the Bridge are often much lower than the settlement fee charged by a local agent． Third， ICSDs can provide efficient settlement services， including end-of-day batch processing and intraday securities lending． However， there are also the following risks． First， internal settlements are effected under the ICSD’s own rules and procedures， which often differ significantly from the rules and procedures in the local markets to which they are linked． Second， replacement costs in internal settlements may be high， implying larger exposures on unsettled contracts． Third， once a Bridge settlement fails， it may trigger a chain of risks．

　　ii． Model II： CSD link through global custodians

　　1． Overview

　　A global custodian holds global assets as entrusted by the asset owners and managers， and streamlines the process for investing in multiple markets through a single gateway for settlement and asset services， integrated customer services and comprehensive reports． Under this arrangement， customers use a single global custodian as a “one-stop shop” （see Chart 2）， instead of having to link to local custodians in each market．

　　It is worth noting that the participation of custodians does not mean that CSD link has to use multi-tier custody and indirect holding． In practice， the direct holding model can also be adopted based on the local laws and regulations as well as requirements of market participants， asset owners and asset managers．

　　2． Case study

　　（1） Global custodian

　　A global custodian provides its customers with access to settlement and custody services by a network of sub-custodians， including the global custodian’s own local branches and external sub-custodians． Its network management should be strong enough to ensure proper selection， designation and real-time monitoring of all their sub-custodians． Its customers include supranational institutions and sovereign nations， central banks， commercial banks， insurance companies， pension managers， enterprises， etc．

　　（2） Clearstream

　　A customer open a securities account with Clearstream Banking Luxembourg （CBL）3， and the securities under custody can be either its proprietary securities or its customers’ securities． CBL does not actually hold the securities in custody， but entrusts to custodians in various countries that open securities accounts with CSDs in each country for final custody of such securities． Clearstream， as one node in the whole business chain， its timeliness and accuracy of operation is dependent on the accuracy and timeliness of upstream and downstream nodes．

　　Meanwhile， although the fundamentals of business operations （such as tax issues and issuer service） are similar， practices and procedures often vary across countries． So， it is important to comply with the legal requirements in each local market． In China’s interbank bond market， Clearstream has not realized direct link yet． Instead， it participates in the market in an indirect way through some global custodians． In recent years， in order to explore a more efficient and convenient link model， Clearstream has started to work with Chinese CSD in pursuit of a shared commitment to facilitating global investors through CIBM Direct， a direct access model to the interbank bond market （see Mode IV）． In the future， CIBM Direct will greatly raise the efficiency of market access．

　　3． Advantages， disadvantages and risks

　　CSD link through global custodians can utilize the global network of the latter to provide a single gateway and standard services for cross-border investors． Another advantage is the availability of foreign exchange service readily provided by the global custodians， which makes multi-currency position management easier for customers．

　　The disadvantages are as follows． First， as a commercial bank， a global custodian functions differently from CSDs， which increases business tiers in while connecting to different CSDs， and therefore the overall complexity and risks． Second， the higher charge by the global custodians increases the costs for investors． Third， the legal backing for the multi-tier custody adopted by global custodians differs across jurisdictions． In case of a dispute， it is likely to cause conflicts in legal rules and loss to investors．

　　The model poses the following risks． First， under the multi-tier custody model， settlement through a global custodian exposes a non-resident counterparty to custody risk． Second， lack of see-through information makes supervision harder． Third， the service provided by global custodians may bring risks4．

　　iii． Model III： CSD link through local agents

　　1． Overview

　　A local agent helps cross-border settlement through an account it maintains for its foreign investor customers at the local CSD． Local agents are usually direct participants in the local CSD． According to the Cross-border Securities Settlements， the use of a local agent remains perhaps the most common method of settling cross-border stock trades （see Chart 3）．

　　2． Case study： Euroclear Model II

　　In addition to the above-mentioned CSD link to various countries （Euroclear Mode I）， Euroclear can also link through its local agents． Under this model， Euroclear opens an omnibus account as a nominee with a local agent （the local agent should be the settlement member of the local CSD）． The account book-keeps the securities held by the settlement members of Euroclear and their customers in the local market in an omnibus way．

　　Taking Euroclear UK & International （EUI） as an example， countries indirectly linked to EUI currently include Austria， Belgium， Luxembourg， Denmark， Finland， France， Germany， Italy， the Netherlands， Norway， Portugal， Spain， Sweden， etc．

　　3． Advantages and disadvantages

　　The advantage of this model lies in that it can give full play to the role of local agents． Its risk depends on the custodial structure used in each market - no additional risks in the case of direct holding， and could even be more efficient and convenient as local agents are more familiar with the local laws and regulations； however， if the local market uses an indirect holding structure， the risk is similar to that of link through global custodians．

　　iv． Model IV： direct participation through local settlement agents

　　1． Overview

　　In practice， emerging markets like China， by drawing on the late-mover advantages， advanced information technology and best practices established in the international market， have devised a more efficient and securer link model based on their reality， i.e．， the direct participation of foreign investors． Under this model， instead of using a link through a foreign CSD， foreign investors can choose to open an account directly with the local CSD， or become participants of the local CSD with the help of local settlement agents． The latter is used as a common practice in China， where settlement agents play a crucial part for foreign investors to access the market （see Chart 4）．

　　2． Typical case： CIBM Direct in China

　　A typical case is CIBM Direct which allows foreign investors to participate in the Chinese interbank bond market in a direct way5 and thus functions as the most-used access to the market． Data show that the “three types of institutions” （including foreign central banks） and large financial institutions tend to invest in China’s bond market through CIBM Direct． Specifically， as for the settlement agent， foreign central banks can choose the People’s Bank of China （PBC） Shanghai Head Office or a Chinese settlement bank as the settlement agent， through which they open accounts in front and back offices of the interbank market to make investments． The bond registration， custody， settlement and interest/principal payment are processed through the Chinese CSD．

　　Focusing on continuous improvement of CIBM Direct， CCDC， as an important FMI of and the key gateway to China’s bond market， has been working on direct link with ICSDs （Euroclear and Clearstream）． It has also supported the development of Macao and other offshore bond markets from the perspective of cross-border FMI cooperation． Such efforts have been welcomed by a large number of foreign investors． Backed by an efficient FMI system， China’s bond market is opening up at a steady and rapid pace． In practice， the link arrangement based on centralized registration and see-through supervision has taken shape； supplemented by multi-tiered services and other flexible measures， it has become a global best practice as it ensures security， convenience and efficiency in cross-border link．

　　3． Advantages and risks

　　The direct participation through local settlement agents allows for efficient and fast operation， clear legal relationships and complete beneficial rights for investors， providing diverse customer services while ensuring see-through supervision． The local CSD offers basic securities services such as registration， custody and settlement． Settlement agents provide diversified financial services for their downstream intermediaries or investors． In this way， all involved parties serve respective functions in a coordinated way， so as to carry out business process in response to differentiated customer demands， as well as compliance with laws and regulations． In terms of settlement efficiency， as direct holding is used， the settlement cycle for foreign investors via CIBM Direct is mainly T+1， and even T+0 in some cases， which is the most efficient． Other models （including the Bond Connect）， by contrast， is still settling on T+2 or T+3 despite efforts to pursue shorter settlement cycles． In reality， the majority of foreign investors participate in China’s bond market through CIBM Direct． According to the public data of CCDC， as of the end of November 2021， foreign investors held nearly RMB2.7 trillion of bonds through CIBM Direct， accounting for 75%， which confirmed CIBM Direct as the most-used access to the Chinese bond market．

　　At the same time， foreign investors entering the market through settlement agents face similar settlement risks as local investors， not subject to additional risks arising from cross-border arrangements． However， care should be taken to guard against the risks caused by improper operation of settlement agents or failure in connection between technical systems．

　　International Experience in Cross-border CSD link

　　International experience shows that， cross-border CSD link， as an important basic arrangement for the opening-up of securities markets， has been widely used in practice． We can come to the following implications based on relevant practices in different countries．

　　First， the CSD link model should follow market development and evolve into a secure， efficient and convenient arrangement． At present， risks of the link models are largely from multi-tier custody and indirect holding， which are legacies from path dependence and vested interest． In the wake of the global financial crisis， a growing emphasis has been placed on information transparency． Therefore， we should always base on see-through supervision when exploring diversified link models， and bring CSDs， ICSDs， settlement agents， custodians and other related parties into the process， so as to provide good services for investors．

　　Second， the choice of CSD link model should be based on domestic conditions and local legal arrangements． Internationally， affected by path dependence and differences in national conditions， markets have formed diversified cross-border CSD link models． In the selection of link models， it is important to understand the historical causes in each foreign market and then select a model in line with China’s actual conditions， thus avoiding risks such as rule mismatch that may arise from rigid duplication of a foreign model．

　　Third， the CSD link model requires well-established supporting arrangements． With increasingly frequent cross-border bond trading and stricter regulation by domestic and foreign authorities， it is necessary to improve supporting arrangements related to CSD services， and put in place well-established technical systems and risk management mechanisms for cross-border custody and settlement， so as to ensure security of trading， regulation， risk prevention， CSD service quality as well as convenience for foreign investors． 

　　Comparison of Custodial Structure and Legal Arrangements in CSD Links

　　i． Custodial structure 

　　The custodial structure lies at the core in securities market operation， and in all of the above-mentioned cross-border link models． The commonly-used structures are the single-tier custody and the multi-tier custody．

　　Due to paper-based issuance， path dependence and other historical legacies， some markets still rely on the multi-tier custody and indirect holding in the cross-border link． In this way， there is a legal relationship between the customer and the securities custodian it entrusted， in which the custodian is responsible for maintaining， clearing and settling securities accounts for the customer． Then， the custodian establishes a legal relationship with the CSD and the issuer in its own name． Professionals have pointed out impaired capability of the ultimate investor in exercising its rights under this model． The International Monetary Fund （IMF） also states in its assessment report of CBL that CBL neither opens accounts nor has proper identification process for its indirect or tiered participants， which may cause risks．

　　On the basis of international experience， late-movers or emerging markets tend to use the single-tier custody which is secure， efficient， and transparent with clear legal relationships． Under the single-tier custody model， the CSD performs the functions of central registration， depository and settlement， open securities accounts for all investors participating in securities trading， keep securities held by actual investors， and directly process securities transfer in settlement． Today’s internet development and paperless trading also work better with this model in boosting efficiency， transparency and security． At present， the single-tier custody is used in Australia， Finland， Czech Republic， Sweden， etc．

　　ii． Legal arrangements 

　　As laws and regulations vary across countries when it comes to the custodial structure and ownership of securities， legal conflicts are almost inevitable in cross-border links． To make it worse， the complicated ownership relations in the multi-tier custody and indirect holding model are even more likely to cause risks． The paper hereby sets out and compares relevant legal arrangements related to CSD links．

　　1． Common law system

　　Common law is adopted in the US， the UK， Singapore， etc． Their CSD-related legal arrangements are mainly trading rules and self-regulatory rules， while some do have relevant clauses in the statute laws， such as the Uniform Commercial Code of the US and the Securities and Futures Act of Singapore．

　　（1） Choice of governing court in case of a cross-border conflict

　　Most common law countries require foreign CSD participants to submit to the jurisdiction of their courts． Policy Statement on the Admission of Non-U.S． Entities as Direct Depository Participants stipulates that， when a foreign CSD applies for an account with DTC， the relevant regulator of the foreign applicant shall have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the US Securities and Exchange Commission （SEC）， and the applicant shall promise to be submit to the jurisdiction of the US court in the event of cross-border conflicts．

　　In case of a dispute， some countries recognize the jurisdiction of other countries’ courts with certain flexibility retained． For example， in Singapore， any judgments made by foreign courts against Singapore CSD should go through the procedures of a Singapore court and should be enforced in Singapore in securities liquidation proceedings， and in some cases the Singapore court may refuse to accept and execute them．

　　（2） Choice of applicable law in case of cross-border conflict

　　There are differences in the choice of applicable law． The US adopts “Place of the Relevant Intermediary Approach” （PRIMA）， and its Uniform Commercial Code stipulates a series of matters7 in connection with which the PRIMA is the applicable law． The UK adopts “lex rei sitae” （the law where the property is situated） as the applicable law．

　　2． Civil law system

　　Civil law is used in EU （such as Germany and France） and Japan．

　　（1） Choice of governing court in case of a cross-border conflict

　　Generally speaking， most civil law countries agree that their courts have jurisdiction． For example， the Japanese CSD stipulates that if indirect foreign account managers are involved， the Tokyo District Court is the court with exclusive jurisdiction． As the CSD of France， Euroclear France stipulates that France assumes the jurisdiction and the responsibility related to asset protection．

　　In addition， some countries follows the principle of voluntariness and consensus． For example， CBL stipulates that issuers may， at their discretion， choose a jurisdiction in the form of legal opinions when issuing international bonds．

　　（2） Choice of applicable law in case of cross-border conflict

　　As for the choice of applicable law， most EU countries adopt “the most relevant place approach”， that is， local laws， such as the laws of the place where the relevant market is located， the place where the relevant account is located or the place of registration， shall apply． In case the most relevant place approach can not solve the conflict， parties may also determine the applicable law through negotiation or according to legal opinions in advance． For example， CBL stipulates that applicable rules of local markets shall apply under the “out-bound” link． However， in France， the pledge under securities accounts opened with direct intermediaries in France shall be governed by French law， regardless of whether the accounts contain securities issued by non-French issuers． Besides， French conflict laws stipulate that the asset protection rule is determined by the law of the place where the account manager is located．

　　Japan defines the scope of application of extraterritorial laws． Matters involving local custody of securities in Hong Kong， South Korea， Luxembourg， Malaysia， the UK and the US shall be determined by the custody contracts of local custodians or foreign CSD rules that conform to the legal systems of those jurisdictions．

　　3． Practice in China

　　Traditional jurisprudence holds that China’s legal system is a civil law system， but in the fields of commercial law and financial law， China shares some characteristics of common law， thus forming a socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics． In recent years， with the advancement of RMB internationalization and the accelerated opening-up of China’s financial sector， China keeps rolling out innovative measures in light of national conditions while improves alignment with international standards． At the same time， related laws and regulations still need to be improved， and many practical problems require enhanced legislative efforts and judicial interpretation．

　　（1） Choice of governing court in case of a cross-border conflict

　　With regard to the determination of the court governing cross-border securities disputes， the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China （hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Procedure Law”） and the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court have set forth general provisions on the jurisdiction of foreign-related civil and commercial litigations． However， China has not yet issued specific rules for cross-border securities business． In particular， Article 265 of the Civil Procedure Law provides that the exclusive jurisdiction concerning foreign-related contracts or securities property right and interest disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction of China’s courts． Pursuant to Articles 33 and 266， for the exclusive jurisdiction cases， unless both parties agree on arbitration， the agreement of one or both parties to choose foreign courts is invalid． According to relevant judicial interpretations， foreign-related securities disputes subject to non-exclusive jurisdiction can be governed by agreed litigation， and the two parties may opt by written agreement to subject to the jurisdiction8 of foreign courts that are actually related to the disputes． With the establishment of Shanghai Financial Court and Beijing Financial Court， the scope of jurisdiction has been expanded． China’s financial courts will play a more pronounced role in the adjudication of cross-border securities disputes in the future．

　　（2） Choice of applicable law in case of cross-border conflict

　　As for the choice of applicable law for foreign-related securities disputes， the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Application of Laws to Foreign-Related Civil Relations sets out general provisions9 on the law most closely related to securities， the choice of applicable law upon agreements and the law of the place of infringement． In case of a securities-related breach， parties involved are allowed to choose the applicable law of the contract upon agreement； if there is no choice， the laws at the habitual residence of party whose fulfillment of obligations can best reflect the characteristics of this contract or other laws which have the closest relation with this contract shall apply． In case of a tort， it is generally necessary to apply the law of the place where the tort occurs； but if the tort involves Chinese securities， parties involved can also apply Chinese laws by agreement． In addition， the legislature is also aware of the urgency of solving problems related to cross-border securities． Article 2 of the Securities Law of the People’s Republic of China as amended stipulates that the overseas securities issuance and trading activities that “disrupt the market order within the territory of the People’s Republic of China， and damage the legitimate rights and interests of domestic investors shall be dealt with and investigated for legal responsibilities in accordance with relevant provisions of this Law”． In the field of arbitration， China has become a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards． Under the guidance of the applicable law in consensus， the successful party in the arbitration may apply for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards by the judicial organs of convention signatories． In recent years， China has also been improving its arrangements related to cross-border securities dispute adjudication． For example， the Regulations of Shanghai Municipality on Promoting the Construction of an International Financial Center requires financial arbitration institutions in Shanghai to “improve financial arbitration rules in accordance with laws， regulations and international practices， so as to make financial arbitration more professional and more in line with international standards”．

　　iii． Conclusions and lessons

　　From the perspective of custodial structure， see-through supervision and single-tier custody are the arrangements that have worked well with market trends and drawn attention from international markets． The “Chinese Model” created in China’s interbank bond market based on late-mover advantage has been affirmed by investors at home and abroad． In the future， we should stick to the direct link model featuring single-tier custody and direct holding， maintain the integrity of the market structure， and protect the investors． In the meantime， it is also important to improve alignment with international standards and be flexible to accommodate diversified link models． 

　　From the legal perspective， it is a common practice to enable connectivity by signing bilateral or multilateral agreements for cooperation． China has also put it into practice． For example， CCDC， as a national FMI in China， has been working with international peers to develop compatible， secure and efficient cross-border link solutions． Over the past few years， it has arrived at MOUs with Clearstream and Euroclear． In 2020， it took a further step to sign an MOU with Singapore Exchange at the meeting of Shanghai-Singapore Comprehensive Cooperation Council． Going forward， it is necessary to learn from international experience， pay more attention to safeguarding national sovereignty and respecting the will of the parties． Efforts should be made to improve rules related to the choice of applicable law in conflicts． As for governing courts， it is necessary to encourage foreign institutions to recognize judicial decisions of China， and choose Chinese financial courts and arbitration institutions as the seat of adjudication and arbitration．

　　Implications and Suggestions

　　i． Cross-border CSD link should be advanced based on a clear-minded plan 

　　It can be concluded that efficiency， transparency and functionality are the fundamental requirements when designing a cross-border CSD link for the bond market． As China is stepping up its opening-up initiative， the ultimate purpose of cross-border CSD link is to facilitate and optimize market opening-up． Therefore， while enhancing alignment with international markets， it is also crucial to take full consideration of China’s actual situations， and to innovate and improve market access for global investors on the premise of see-through supervision． That is how we can create a coordinated and enabling ecosystem for opening-up．

　　First， to stick to and improve the Chinese model in line with international practices． At the onset of China’s interbank bond market， an efficient and secure registration， custody and settlement system was put in place as guided by delicate top-level design， lessons learned from international experience and consideration of the local situation． This system underlay China’s flight to the world’s second largest bond market and earned praise from ICSDs and foreign CSDs． It， therefore， has become the indisputable Chinese model． Amid growing complexity in the international market， the opening-up process of China’s bond market will come to new challenges． In addition to efforts to enhance alignment with international practices， we should always stay confident in our own model and present tested Chinese practices to the globe． 

　　Second， to keep financial risks under control． When design the CSD link in the process of opening up China’s bond market， a critical prerequisite is to keep risks under control and ensure financial stability． Compared with the common practice in developed markets that relies on indirect holding through nominee accounts， the  direct holding model， which has been developed and tested over time in China， boasts greater efficiency and clearer legal relationships． In the Chinese model， with well-established rules， the regulators can implement see-through supervision and no controversy will occur．

　　Third， to improve multi-tiered services and win-win cooperation． In the process of promoting opening-up and connectivity， it is necessary to ensure that the financial sector should serve real economy while protecting national interests． Lessons learned from the experience in other countries should be kept in mind to avoid mistakes． On the other hand， it is also important to seek win-win cooperation． Emphasis may be given to how to work with global custodians and ICSDs， and foreign investors who have accessed China’s market through foreign intermediaries need to be properly protected．

　　ii． Suggestions on specific measures

　　First， see-through supervision should be upheld to ensure financial security and investors’ interests． In the context of financial globalization， the global flow of capital and allocation of assets are becoming more frequent． By drawing on lessons from other countries， we should hold on to see-through supervision， ensure clear and transparent books， and protect national financial security and investors’ interests． Practical suggestions are as follows． First， on the basis of direct holding and see-through supervision， foreign investors should be encouraged to open accounts （fund accounts and securities accounts） directly with Chinese CSDs through settlement agents or in batches through ICSDs， thus ensuring see-through information on underlying investors． Second， in addition to the “non-trade transfer” mechanism for bonds on the QFII， RQFII and CIBM Direct accounts of the same foreign entity， explorations can be made to allow tiered management of bond accounts， where legal person entities and unincorporated products will be separated． In this way， the rights on an account will be matched to the legal status of the account holder in a clear way， thus enhancing investor protection．

　　Second， the FMI system should be improved to enhance security and efficiency of the cross-border link． On the one hand， it is suggested to establish an advanced cross-border settlement and custody arrangement， an efficient and secure cross-border custodian transfer mechanism， and a unified registration and custody system covering multiple products across markets． Meanwhile， full-fledged collateral management services， full-spectrum valuation services， and comprehensive information services are also needed to support the FMI system for cross-border link． While keeping in line with international rules， foreign investors will be encouraged to choose Chinese courts and arbitration institutions for adjudication and arbitration． On the other hand， standardization needs to be enhanced to raise efficiency and convenience for foreign investors to participate in the Chinese market． To this end， relevant measures include using the globally accepted SWIFT message standards， connecting efficiently to CIPS， improving customer service portals and websites， and offering multilingual services．

　　Third， both “in-bound” and “out-bound” links should be promoted to facilitate RMB internationalization and the Belt and Road Initiative． On the in-bound side， CIBM Direct should continue its status as the most-used channel， for its time-tested role in helping China’s rise to the world’s second largest bond market and ensuring well-paced market opening-up． On top of that， improvements will also be made to make this model even better． For example， efforts can be made to enhance CSD connectivity with countries along the Belt and Road， so as to bridge flow of capital as well as information． On the out-bound side， it is suggested to expand the use of CIBM Direct， supplemented by compatible and viable arrangements for CSD links， to facilitate securities investments in the Belt and Road region． As for the two-way opening-up， pilot programs can be first rolled out int the free trade zones （ports） to grow an offshore RMB bond market based on “diversified trading venues and integrated custody service”． Thus onshore FMIs will be able to provide registration and custody services for the offshore RMB bond market， adding new models and scenarios to the cross-border CSD link． Besides， the rules for offshore bonds should be made carefully by catering to both local situations and international rules， so that we can keep the initiative in cross-border cooperation and also attract global investors．

　　（This article is part of the deliverables of the Research on Registration， Custody and Settlement in the Bond Market of CCDC Research and Development Center．）

　　Notes：

　　1． It is sometimes translated as “中央证券存管机构” to be distinguished from custodian banks．

　　2． Certain conditions have to be met before a foreign participant may connect to DTC via this model： the primary local regulator of the foreign participant must have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the US SEC， and must have agreed that the link protocol may be adjusted， if necessary， in accordance with changes in relevant US laws and regulations．

　　3． Clearstream Banking Luxembourg （CBL）， a subsidiary of Clearstream International S.A．， is responsible for securities custody in Luxembourg while Clearstream Banking Frankfurt is responsible for securities custody in Germany． CBL also acts as an ICSD for international securities custody．

　　4． Global custodians often provide liquidity to their customers to mitigate the settlement risk arising out of failure in securities delivery or delay in payment． These services usually involve temporary debiting or crediting the customer’s cash account． However， the liquidity line provided by global custodians to customers may vary under different circumstances． If customers are not notified in time in advance， they may face huge liquidity risks in operation． In addition， if customers misunderstand the temporary nature of these credits， they may underestimate their credit risks to counterparties and issuers．

　　5． According to the Notice on Issues Concerning the Pilot Program on Investment in the Interbank Bond Market with RMB Funds by Three Types of Institutions Including Overseas RMB Clearing Banks published by the People’s Bank of China in 2010， overseas central banks and RMB clearing banks in Hong Kong and Macao “can directly apply to CCDC for opening bond accounts and to the National Interbank Funding Center for handling bond trading procedures on line”， though there are actually few clearing banks using this model in practice．

　　6． Please refer to the IMF’s assessment of observance of the PFMI by CBL in 2017． Available at https：//www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2017/08/28/Luxembourg-Financial-Sector-Assessment-Program-Detailed-Assessment-of-Observance-Assessment-45209． （Accessed in December 2021）．

　　7． The Uniform Commercial Code stipulates a series of matters in connection with which the PRIMA is the applicable law： （1） the securities rights obtained from the securities intermediary； （2） the rights and obligations of securities intermediaries and rights owners accrued based on securities rights； （3） judgement whether securities intermediaries are under obligation to the obligees filing adverse claims to the securities rights； and （4） judgement whether an adverse claim can be filed against a person who obtains the securities rights from a securities intermediary or acquires the securities rights or interests in the securities rights from a right owner．

　　8． Article 531 of the Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China： the parties to a foreign-related contract or other property right dispute may， by written agreement， choose the jurisdiction of the foreign court in the place where it is actually related to the dispute such as the defendant’s domicile， place of contract performance， place of contract signing， the plaintiff’s domicile， the location of subject matter or place of tort．

　　9． Please refer to Articles 39， 41 and 44 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Application of Laws to Foreign-Related Civil Relations． 

　　References

　　[1] International Institute for the Unification of Private Law． UNIDROIT Legislative Guide on Intermediated Securities - Implementing the Principles and Rules of the Geneva Securities Convention [S]． 2019．

　　[2] Yan Yanming， Ma Junqing． Improvement of the Settlement System of China’s Securities Market through “Settlement” from an International Perspective [J]． Modern Bankers， 2021（8）：3．

　　[3] Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems， the Bank for International Settlements and the Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions． Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures （Translated by the Payment and Settlement Department of the People’s Bank of China） [M]． Beijing： China Financial Publishing House， 2013．

　　[4] CCDC． Bond Custody and Settlement Business （Fifth Revised Edition） [M]． Beijing： Economic Science Press， 2016．

　　This article was first published on Bond Monthly （Jan.2022）．Please indicate the source clearly when citing this article． The English version is for reference only， and the original Chinese version shall prevail in case of any inconsistency．

　　◇ Authors from： R&D Department， 

　　CCDC Shanghai Headquarters

　　◇ Editors in charge： Liu Ying， Yin Ying

责任编辑：赵思远