論公司資本制度顛覆性改革的環境與邏輯缺陷及制度補救

Institutional Remedies of Environmental and Logical Flaw in Disruptive Reform of Company Capital System

2013年我國《公司法》完成的資本制度改革基本上是沿襲了法國、日本、韓國、台灣地區近10年來的做法，於我國國情考慮很不周延。工商機關從公司登記事務切入取消公司法定最低資本數額和實繳要求自始不合法治原則，謀求逃避監管職責的制度“走私”利益，欠缺正當性，存在違法情節；而深圳創造的“認繳制”概念在法律上沒有確切的含義，沒有體系化的制度結構，深究起來不知所雲。地方政府越權修訂國家的公司法，冒犯全國人大權威，實質獲取“舉改革大旗”、“挖制度洼地以引流搶奪國內金融資源”、“摘皇榜”等行政機會利益，倒逼全國人大及其常委會吃改革宴席中的立法“剩飯”，污損了民意機構的尊嚴。實施顛覆性的改革措施，忽視了其他大陸法系國家和地區公司資本制度變革的背景及底線。英美授權資本制下維護交易安全的配套制度非常完備和精細，我國則缺乏那種系統性的法律配置和軟文化，依托法定資本制保護債權人利益是我國長期的最適合制度選項。所幸的是，本次改制後，法定資本制的框架尚得以保存，我們必須戒急用忍，通過公司法的進一步修訂建立及時、妥當的配套制度，跟進補救其錯漏。

The institutional reform of company capital in Company Law happened in 2013 is a simple adoption of foreign practices from France, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, without taking China's distinctive ecology into full consideration. The efforts of administration for industry and commerce in repealing the statutory registered capital and contributed capital, indeed has no foundation because it is not only unlawful but also a shirking of regulatory responsibility. The vague and ambiguous concept of “authorized capital” innovated in Shenzhen lacks an institutional framework and thus is unenforceable. Also, exceeding its powers in amending the national Company Law, the local government of Shenzhen has impinged the integrity and authority of the National People's Congress, in fact reduced legitimate lawmaking authority into mopping up the leftovers in the feast of reform and essentially obtained opportunism advantages stemming out of “race to the bottom”. To put it in a bigger picture, the disruptive legislation reform ignores the backgrounds of and constrains on such reforms of capital rules in other civil law countries. Moreover, China has no supporting legal and culture system as well as comprehensive rules to safeguard transactions as common law countries, which makes the statutory capital rule in company law our best choice to provide full protection to creditors. Fortunately, the basic framework of statutory capital survives the reform. We ought to formulate follow-up measures in further amendments of Company Law and try to cure the defects and mistakes of the 2013 reform.