|
|
|
| Practical Obstacles and Solutions of Online Platform Accounts for Capital Contribution |
| Zhou You |
| Law School, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing 100081, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract According to the general principles of the Company Law, non-monetary assets that can be used for capital contribution should meet the two conditions of “transferable in accordance with law” and “can be valued in currency”. Although the regulation of shareholders’ capital contribution in the new Company Law has generally tended to respect the autonomy of the parties, in the context of the digital economy, it is not uncommon to see cases of using new non-monetary assets such as online platform accounts as capital contributions, which has a great impact on the rules and concepts of mandatory assessment based on the ownership of rights. Many cases that have emerged so far reflect that judicial decisions focus on the issue of whether the right to use an online platform account can be used for capital contribution. The reason why users do not contribute with the ownership of the platform account is mainly limited by the special rules set by the online platform, that is, the user usually does not enjoy the ownership of the platform account. However, even if only the right to use a specific property is transferred, it is not appropriate to directly deny the validity of its capital contribution, but to consider determining it as the contribution of other corresponding property rights. In fact, the object of the online platform account’s capital contribution is neither the ownership of the account nor the right to use it, but the content generated, stored or published on the account. This mainly includes copyright rights, data or online virtual property, etc.Furthermore, the objects of capital contribution made by online platform accounts are relatively special, and there are differences in certainty, so it is not necessary and possible to require a general assessment of them. Shareholders can agree on the object and value of non-monetary property contributions according to the company’s business needs, and there is no need for compulsory appraisal unless there is a situation that damages the interests of the company and its creditors. In addition, although the appraisal price is usually a more objective reflection of the value of the capital contribution than the negotiated price, it is not uncommon for different appraisal reports of the same capital contribution to differ greatly in practice. If there is a failure of autonomy between the parties, or if it involves issues such as the protection of the company’s creditors. The law should respect the negotiation between the parties. In judicial practice, even when an assessment is required, it is still necessary for the judge to weigh his interests in light of the specific facts of the case and with reference to the assessment results. In the era of digital economy, many non-monetary property contributions have different degrees of separation of interests under rights and different entities share different interests, and the new Company Law broadens the types of shareholders’ non-monetary property contributions, the right to choose and set prices, and at the same time strengthens the capital adequacy responsibilities of shareholders and directors. These rule innovations are in line with the trend of diversification of shareholders’ capital contributions, and help to achieve a balance between the interests of shareholders’ freedom of capital contribution and the protection of corporate creditors.
|
|
Received: 08 August 2024
|
|
|
|
1 郭旨龙：《非法获取计算机信息系统数据罪的规范结构与罪名功能——基于案例与比较法的反思》，《政治与法律》2021年第1期，第64-76页。
2 杨晨宇：《网络账号的法律属性及保护探析》，《行政与法》2014年第1期，第78-81页。
3 《商法学》编写组：《商法学》（第二版），北京：高等教育出版社，2022年。
4 赵旭东主编：《商法学》（第三版），北京：高等教育出版社，2015年。
5 唐鸣晓、黄琦、黄晨：《微信账号使用权可以作为公司股东的有效出资》，《人民司法》2020年第29期，第71-74页。
6 欧阳福生、张慧娟：《股东擅自取回作价出资的快手账号构成抽逃出资》，《人民司法》2022年第26期，第64-66页。
7 王曦：《著作权权利配置研究——以权利人和利益相关者为视角》，北京：中国民主法制出版社，2017年。
8 申卫星：《论数据用益权》，《中国社会科学》2020年第11期，第110-131页。
9 龙卫球：《数据新型财产权构建及其体系研究》，《政法论坛》2017年第4期，第63-77页。
10 沈健州：《数据财产的权利架构与规则展开》，《中国法学》2022年第4期，第92-113页。
11 刘冰：《论数据资产化的法律障碍及破解路径》，《中国法律评论》2023年第2期，第51-63页。
12 陈旭琴、戈壁泉：《论网络虚拟财产的法律属性》，《浙江学刊》2004年第5期，第144-148页。
13 黄薇主编：《中华人民共和国民法典释义（上）》，北京：法律出版社，2020年。
14 Kraakman R.， Armour J. & Davies P. et al.， The Anatomy of Corporate Law： A Comparative and Functional Approach， Oxford： Oxford University Press， 2009.
15 宋冬林、田广辉：《经济平台化模式下数据的资本化与资本积累新特点》，《税务与经济》2023年第1期，第1-7页。
16 姚佳：《数据要素市场化的法律制度配置》，《郑州大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2022年第6期，第43-50页。
17 周游：《股东出资规则的体系性解释——以新〈公司法〉第47—54条为轴线》，《交大法学》2024年第5期，第63-79页。
18 宋宇、嵇正龙：《论新经济中数据的资本化及其影响》，《陕西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2020年第4期，第123-131页。
19 周游：《有限责任公司注册资本限期实缴的制度考量》，《中国市场监管研究》2023年第9期，第28-32页。 |
|
|
|
2025, Vol. 55 
