Core Insights - The article highlights the challenges faced by families with special needs when establishing special needs trusts, particularly the heavy tax burdens that can hinder their effectiveness [1][4][6] - The "Tongzhou case" serves as a significant example of how a special needs trust can provide long-term support for individuals with disabilities, showcasing the potential benefits of such trusts when tax burdens are alleviated [2][3][12] Group 1: Special Needs Trusts - Special needs trusts are essential for protecting the rights and dignity of vulnerable groups, including individuals with autism and the elderly [2][6] - The establishment of a special needs trust allows families to ensure ongoing care and support for their disabled members, overcoming potential legal and financial obstacles [2][4] Group 2: Real Estate and Trusts - The introduction of real estate into special needs trusts allows ordinary families to utilize their primary assets for long-term security and dignity [3][4] - The pilot program in Beijing facilitates the inclusion of real estate in trusts, making it accessible to a broader demographic [3][4] Group 3: Tax Burdens - High tax burdens associated with real estate trusts, including deed tax, property tax, and income tax, present significant barriers to the establishment of special needs trusts [4][6] - The tax implications for trusts are disproportionately higher compared to individual ownership, discouraging families from setting up these protective financial structures [4][5] Group 4: Tax Fairness and Reform - The primary demand from families utilizing special needs trusts is for tax fairness rather than tax benefits, advocating for tax rates comparable to those for individual property ownership [6][8] - Proposed reforms suggest redefining the tax obligations of trusts to align more closely with individual tax rates, particularly for properties used for personal or familial residence [8][11] Group 5: Legal Framework and Support - Establishing the legal status of trust plans as independent entities for tax purposes is crucial for resolving the current tax burden issues [7][11] - Legal experts are increasingly supportive of clarifying the tax and property rights of trust plans, which could lead to significant improvements in the trust system for special needs families [12]

近段时间以来，信托财产被法院执行的案例受到广泛关注，甚至引发业内外对于信托财产独立性及 风险隔离功能的质疑。什么是信托，为何有的信托会被"击穿"，信托的生命力何在？就上述问题，《金 融时报》记者采访了复旦大学法学院教授、博士生导师高凌云。 《金融时报》记者：近年来，不论是影视剧，还是现实生活中，信托作为一个制度或工具被越来越 多人所知道。您能否解释一下信托是什么？ 《金融时报》记者：近日，南通某法院执行某信托基金的案件引发大众对于信托隔离风险的忧虑， 甚至有人认为法院违反了信托法，请问何为信托被"击穿"？ 高凌云：信托被"击穿"一般分为三种情形：信托自始无效，信托有效但信托财产依法可以被执行以 及信托财产被错误执行。 第一种情形包括信托财产不符合确定性和合法性要求因而无效，或者设立信托前已有债权人对信托 财产享有优先受偿权，设立信托是为了损害债权人利益等不合法的目的，因此信托被撤销。后果是，该 信托的财产可以被强制执行。在这种情况下，信托不是被"击穿"，而是本来就无效。 第二种情形是信托设立人一直对信托财产拥有所有权或控制权。信托即便有效，其财产也不独立， 不能对抗信托设立人的债权人，因此可以被执行。至于信托 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent case of a family trust being "pierced" by a court in Jiangsu has caused significant upheaval in the trust industry, raising concerns about the legal treatment of trust assets and the execution process [2][4][6]. Group 1: Case Details - In the case (2023) Su 0602 Zhi 6286, the court executed assets amounting to 41.43 million yuan from a family trust belonging to Cui Yi, treating them as deposits [2][3]. - Cui Yi was sentenced to 14 years in prison for bribery and fraud, with a restitution obligation of 70.12 million yuan to China Resources Pharmaceutical Group [3][4]. - The court's actions included freezing multiple bank accounts and seizing real estate, leading to the execution of the family trust assets without a formal determination of the trust's validity [3][4]. Group 2: Legal Implications - The execution of trust assets raises questions about the independent nature of trust property, which should not be treated as the personal property of the grantor [4][8]. - The court's direct execution of trust assets without a thorough examination of the trust's validity or the circumstances surrounding its establishment is seen as a procedural flaw [6][18]. - The case highlights the need for a clear legal process to determine the validity of trusts, especially in complex cases involving multiple parties [4][17]. Group 3: Industry Concerns - The incident has sparked concerns within the trust industry regarding the potential for misuse of trusts for debt evasion and the implications for trust asset protection [12][20]. - There is a growing need for regulatory clarity and legal safeguards to ensure that family trusts can operate effectively without being undermined by judicial actions [19][20]. - The trust industry is at a critical juncture, as improper handling of trust assets could lead to a loss of confidence among potential clients, prompting them to seek asset protection solutions abroad [20].

Core Viewpoint - The recent court ruling in Nantong regarding the seizure of a family trust fund valued at 41.43 million yuan has sparked significant debate in the financial sector, with some interpreting it as a breach of family trust protections, while experts argue this interpretation is a misunderstanding of the case's legal context [1][2][7]. Case Background - The controversy originated from a criminal judgment against Cui, who was sentenced to 14 years in prison for bribery and fraud, along with a fine of 800,000 yuan and a restitution of over 70 million yuan to China Resources Pharmaceutical Group [2][4]. - During the execution phase in October 2023, the court seized over 5 million yuan from Cui's bank accounts and directly deducted 41.43 million yuan from his family trust fund [2][4]. Industry Reactions - Many industry professionals believe the case has been misinterpreted, emphasizing the need to analyze the specifics of the case to clarify whether the trust structure was legitimate and whether the seized assets were indeed trust assets [4][7]. - Experts pointed out that the family trust fund in question may not conform to standard family trust structures managed by trust companies, but rather resembles a private fund lacking risk isolation features [5][7]. Misunderstanding of Trust Structures - The term "pseudo-family trust" has been used to describe trusts that do not meet legal standards or have significant flaws in their establishment process, leading to potential legal risks [5][6]. - The court's ruling did not invalidate the trust structure itself but highlighted that the assets involved were derived from illegal sources, thus falling under the execution scope [7][9]. Practical Implications - The case has raised questions about the execution process, as the court treated the trust assets as deposits without formally declaring the trust invalid, which has led to concerns about the legal implications of such actions [10][12]. - Industry professionals are now more focused on due diligence regarding asset legitimacy, with many trust companies tightening their asset verification processes to ensure compliance with legal standards [13][14]. Market Sentiment - The incident has caused temporary anxiety among high-net-worth clients, although many have come to understand that trusts are meant to protect legitimate assets, not illegal gains [13][14]. - The case serves as a reminder of the importance of legal compliance in family trusts and the need for ongoing education in the market regarding the proper use of trust structures [15].

Core Viewpoint - The introduction of the "special needs trust" concept in China aims to provide a structured solution for the care of vulnerable groups, including disabled individuals and the elderly, through a legal and financial framework [1][2][3]. Group 1: Special Needs Trust Overview - The "special needs trust" is defined as a trust established to meet the specific living needs of designated beneficiaries, primarily focusing on individuals with disabilities or elderly individuals requiring care [1][2]. - As of November 2024, there are approximately 35 million disabled elderly individuals in China, projected to rise to 46 million by 2035, highlighting the urgent need for sustainable care solutions [2]. - The trust mechanism allows families to institutionalize care responsibilities, ensuring long-term support for special needs individuals, thereby enhancing their quality of life and dignity [2][3]. Group 2: Legal and Institutional Framework - The establishment of the special needs trust is aligned with various legal frameworks, including the Civil Code and Trust Law, emphasizing the need for a legal basis to ensure sustainable support for special needs individuals [3][4]. - There is a call for collaborative efforts among various stakeholders to enhance the legal and institutional framework surrounding special needs trusts, ensuring effective governance and oversight [4][5]. Group 3: Challenges and Recommendations - Despite the promising outlook for special needs trusts, challenges remain, including high tax burdens and the need for improved regulatory frameworks [4][6]. - Recommendations include adopting tax incentives for special needs trusts, similar to practices in other countries, to alleviate financial burdens on families [6][7]. - The importance of governance and supervision in the establishment and management of special needs trusts is emphasized to prevent potential conflicts and ensure the protection of beneficiaries' interests [5][6].