注：文末有中文版

SALEFORM 2012 CLAUSE 2

2. Deposit

As security for the correct fulfilment of this Agreement the Buyers shall lodge a deposit of % ([ ] per cent or, if left blank, 10% (ten per cent), of the Purchase Price (the “Deposit”) in an interest bearing account for the Parties with the Deposit Holder within three (3) Banking Days after the date that:

(i) this Agreement has been signed by the Parties and exchanged in original or by email or telefax; and

(ii) the Deposit Holder has confirmed in writing to the Parties that the account has been opened.

The Deposit shall be released in accordance with joint written instructions of the Parties. Interest, if any, shall be credited to the Buyers. Any fee charged for holding and releasing the Deposit shall be borne equally by the Parties. The Parties shall provide to the Deposit Holder all necessary documentation to open and maintain the account without delay.

5.14 INTRODUCTION

It is customary in ship sale contracts for the buyer to be required to put up a cash deposit as security for the due performance of its obligations under the contract. This requirement is expressly included in Clause 2 of Saleform 2012.

5.14.1 Amount of the deposit

The seller will wish to ensure that the deposit amount provides the buyer with sufficient incentive to complete the purchase and, if it fails to do so, that the deposit amount will adequately compensate the seller. The buyer's main concern will relate to its ability to obtain and lock-up cash at the time of contract signing, and to the risk that it may not be able to complete the purchase.

In addition to these considerations a number of factors may be relevant including:

whether the seller and the buyer have an existing relationship;

the availability of alternative second-hand tonnage of similar profile;

the financial standing of the buyer; and

the anticipated length of time between contract signing and delivery of the ship.

While these considerations may lead to hard negotiations about the amount of the deposit, market practice has been for the buyer to pay a deposit equivalent to 10% of the purchase price. This is reflected in Saleform 1993, Nipponsale and SSF2011 each of which expressly provides that the deposit will be 10% of the purchase price. If the parties are contracting on any of these standard forms and wish to negotiate a deposit amount other than 10%, it is necessary to amend the printed terms.

In Saleform 2012, the parties are required to insert an agreed percentage into a blank space at line 32 but if they fail to do so, it is stipulated that the deposit will be 10% of the purchase price. Accordingly, if the deposit is to be an amount other than 10% of the purchase price, an insertion of the agreed deposit amount must be made at line 32 of the printed terms.

While Saleform 2012 still requires amendment to the printed terms in order to contract for a deposit percentage other than 10%, this revision nevertheless reflects an intention by the draftsmen of Saleform 2012 to move away from the idea of 10% as standard. The inclusion of a default position is a running theme in Saleform 2012 and is designed to ensure that the form provides a market practice solution if the parties fail to insert text in any of the relevant blank spaces.

On occasion the buyer and the seller may agree that no deposit will be required (perhaps because they have arranged alternative security arrangements or, alternatively, because their commercial relationship means that they are comfortable dealing on such terms). In such cases, where one of the standard forms is being used, it will be necessary not only to delete the deposit clause but also to make consequential deletions and amendments to the deposit references in the other standard form terms.

5.14.2 The deposit holder

The identity of the deposit holder is a key issue for the buyer and the seller when negotiating a ship sale contract. Each party must feel comfortable that the deposit holder has the financial standing and integrity to be entrusted with holding the deposit monies and releasing them in accordance with the contract terms. In practice the most commonly used providers of this service are banks, shipbrokers and law firms.

Saleform 2012 introduces the term “Deposit Holder”. In the definition section (at lines 19–20) the parties are invited to insert the name and location of the deposit holder but, if they fail to do so, the role shall be fulfilled by the seller's bank. This approach is in line with other provisions in Saleform 2012 where the parties are free to agree certain specific matters but a default position is provided in case they do not.

The placement of the deposit with the deposit holder should not give the seller or the buyer exclusive control over the deposit because, in the event of a contested breach of the sale contract, each party will wish to have assurance of knowing that the other party cannot unilaterally demand the release or return of the deposit or any portion of it. It is also important that the deposit holder will not have any rights of lien or set-off against the monies (or any part of them) on the account by virtue of its relationship with the seller and/ or the buyer. For this reason ship sale contracts usually provide that the deposit will be held in the joint names of the seller and the buyer. Since the deposit holder typically will not be a party to the sale contract, the parties should ensure that the deposit holder's mandate in relation to the joint deposit account is consistent with the terms of the sale contract. It has been known for the buyer to pay the security deposit to an account which is in the seller's sole name and under its exclusive control.

It is common for the seller, the buyer and the deposit holder to enter into a separate agreement regulating the opening, operation and closure of the joint account. The terms of this agreement (often referred to as an “escrow agreement”) will vary depending upon the individual circumstances of the transaction but, typically, will address the following matters:

the names (and perhaps specimen signatures) of the representatives of the seller and the buyer authorised to deal with the joint account;

the rate of interest, if any, which will accrue on the deposit;

the responsibility for payment of bank fees;

the mechanism for release of the deposit. Usually the escrow agreement will provide that the deposit monies will be released (or returned) in accordance with the joint written instructions of the seller and the buyer failing which the deposit holder will release (or return) the monies only upon receipt of a final unappealable arbitration award or court judgment obtained in connection with the sale contract;

the closure of the account.

5.14.3 When must the deposit be paid?

The buyer will wish to ensure that the stipulated time for it to place the deposit monies with the deposit holder is sufficient. Failure by the buyer to lodge the deposit in time will entitle the seller to cancel the contract pursuant to Clause 13 and to claim compensation for its losses and for all expenses together with interest.

Clause 2 of Saleform 2012 (lines 33–38) provides for the deposit to be lodged within three banking days after satisfaction of the following conditions:

(i). the contract has been signed by the parties and exchanged in original or by telefax or email; and

(ii).the deposit holder has confirmed in writing to the parties that the deposit account has been opened.

The inclusion of these conditions in Saleform 2012 is designed to ensure that the buyer has sufficient time within which to lodge the deposit in the deposit account. Under Saleform 1993, the deposit is required to be lodged within three banking days “from the date of this Agreement ”. Practical challenges in opening a joint account so quickly means that the parties often find this provision unworkable and consequential amendments to the printed terms of Clause 2 of Saleform 1993 are commonplace.

The condition that the deposit holder must confirm in writing to the parties that the deposit account has been opened before time starts running for the buyer to lodge the deposit is a sensible clarification. However, there is no express time limit for receipt of this confirmation or any stipulated consequences of failure of the deposit account to be opened within a specified period. Instead Clause 2 of Saleform 2012 (lines 41–42) provides that the parties must deliver to the deposit holder all necessary documentation to open and maintain the deposit account “without delay”.

There are occasions where through fault (or sometimes no fault) of the parties, a deposit account cannot be opened in a timely manner. Where a party takes the view that the delay is so long that it no longer wishes to be bound by the contract, it might be challenging for it to make a good case for valid termination of the contract on that ground. If the buyer and the seller require more certainty on this point, they could include a provision giving either party the right to cancel the contract without liability on its part if, without breach on its part, the deposit holder has not confirmed that the deposit account is open by a stipulated date.

The buyer should always make sure that the defined period gives its bank sufficient time to transfer the deposit monies to the account of the deposit holder.

In this regard, the obligation on the buyer to “lodge” the deposit with the deposit holder within the specified time period (as opposed to “pay” which is the term used in Saleform 1993) makes it clear that the monies must be received in the deposit account by that time and not merely remitted by the buyer's bank.

An amendment often made is the insertion of “clear” or “full” days before each reference to “Banking Days” in the standard printed terms; this underlines that the period in question will be made up of an agreed number of whole days.

5.14.4 Anti-money laundering and “KYC” requirements

In the fight against money laundering, increasingly stringent requirements are being imposed on credit and financial institutions and companies to ensure that each of their clients is correctly identified with appropriate supporting evidence.

Within the United Kingdom the legal rules relating to KYC requirements and antimoney laundering derive from:

the work of the Financial Action Task Force – an inter-governmental, policymaking body whose purpose is to combat money laundering (amongst other things);

European Union Directives;

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA);

Terrorism Act 2000; and

Money Laundering Regulations 2007.

The EU Directive 2001/97/EC (amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC) on the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering updates previous EU legislation (which focussed on combating the laundering of the proceeds of drugs offences) to include suspicious transaction reporting and international cooperation in this area.

As a result of the offences created by the applicable legislation and to ensure that customer due diligence checks are satisfied, the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 prescribe certain checks to be carried out. These include:

identifying the client and verifying their identity on the basis of documents,data or information obtained from a reliable and independent source;

where there is a beneficial owner who is not the client, identifying the beneficial owner and taking adequate measures, on a risk-sensitive basis, to verify his identity (this includes understanding the ownership and control structure of the legal person in question); and

obtaining information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship.

As a result of these mandatory requirements (and the consequences of being found not to have complied with them) certain financial institutions are becoming reluctant to act as deposit holders for ship sale transactions. For those who remain willing to act in this capacity, the need to fully satisfy the anti-money laundering and “KYC” requirements can result in significant delays before they will receive the deposit monies.

5.14.5 Interest

While Clause 2 of Saleform 2012 requires the buyer to establish the deposit soon after signature of the contract, Clause 3 provides for the deposit to be released to the seller as part of the purchase price at delivery of the ship. This means that the seller has no immediate right to the deposit and legal ownership of the deposit will remain with the buyer until the moment when the deposit is to be released to the seller. It follows that until this moment arrives any interest accruing on the deposit belongs to the buyer.

Saleform 2012 expressly provides that the joint account will be “interest bearing” (line 33) with any interest belonging to the buyer.

5.14.6 Deposit and total loss

Clause 5(e) of Saleform 2012 provides that if the ship should become an actual, constructive or compromised total loss before delivery, the deposit (together with any interest earned) shall be released immediately to the buyer.

5.14.7 Failure to pay the deposit

Lines 329–331 in Clause 13 of Saleform 2012 gives the seller a right to cancel the contract and to claim compensation for its losses and for all expenses incurred together with interest, if the buyer fails to pay the deposit within the prescribed time period.

5.14.8 Deposit and sub-sale

Where, following the sale of a ship, there is an on-sale to another buyer, the parties to each contract need to take care that their rights and their ability to perform their own obligations under each contract with regard to the payment and release of the deposit are not compromised by any practical arrangements being proposed to simplify the on-sale process.

In San Pedro Compania Armadora SA v. Henry Navigation Co Ltd and Pablo Compania Maritima de Desarrollo SA (The Ranger) (1970), S agreed to sell the ship to H under a contract which required H to put up a deposit equivalent to 10% of the purchase price and which fixed 30 June as the contract cancelling date. H agreed to sell the ship to P on the same terms as to price and deposit but with 31 May as the contract cancelling date. The deposit under the first contract was funded by P's payment of the deposit required under the second contract, the relevant amount being remitted to an interest bearing account in the joint names of P and B (B was the agent of S). On 1 June P cancelled the second contract on the ground that H had failed to deliver the ship within the contract cancelling date. On 13 June S tendered the ship for delivery under the first contract but H refused to accept her. On 17 June S treated H's conduct as a repudiation and cancelled the first contract. S then sought release of the deposit to itself. P resisted, but Mocatta J held as follows:

“I am left with the position, therefore, that Pablo consented to their name being used as one of the two names in which the joint account was opened. The other name was, to their knowledge, that of the agents of the plaintiffs as the vendors of the Ranger, but vendors not under a contract of sale to which Pablo were a party. I have no doubt that the correct inference from the documents is that Pablo knew of the existence and terms of the contract of Mar. 7 between the plaintiffs and Henry Navigation. The conclusion seems to be inescapable that in ratifying the use of their name as one of the two joint account holders Pablo were ratifying its use as that of agent for Henry Navigation. … Since, as between the plaintiffs and Henry Navigation, the former are, in the events that have happened, entitled to the deposit, Pablo, in my judgement, have no claim to the deposit as against the plaintiffs. I accordingly decide the issue in favour of the plaintiffs.”

In circumstances where one deposit is being used to secure the obligations of more than one party (as in the case of a sub-sale) it would be prudent for the parties involved (including the deposit holder) to set out the terms on which the monies will be held and released in a separate agreement.

5.14.9 Deposit and nominees

Where the buyer nominates a substitute buyer after the deposit has been lodged, appropriate steps need to be taken to ensure that the deposit still fulfils its role as security for the seller in case of the buyer's breach and that the deposit can be released to the seller at delivery. The escrow agreement regulating the holding and release of the deposit may require amendment to reflect the nomination of the substitute buyer.

5.15 NOTES ON NIPPONSALE 1999

Clause 2(a) of Nipponsale requires the buyer to pay a 10% deposit into a joint account held by the seller's nominated bank. Interest earned on the deposit is for the buyer's account and each party is to pay one half of the bank charges for the holding of the deposit. Under Nipponsale 1999, the buyer is required to remit the deposit within three “Banking Days” from the date of the sale agreement. “Banking Days” being defined by reference to the places specified to the places specified in Box 15.

Like Saleform 2012, Nipponsale 1999 expressly provides that the deposit will stand as security for the buyer's performance of the agreement and shall be paid to the seller as part of the purchase price (with Clause 2(b) setting out the buyer's obligations regarding “the balance of the Purchase Price”).

To avoid any unintentional shortening of this period, the buyer should ensure that the agreement is given the date on which both parties sign rather than an earlier date (such as the date on which the main terms were agreed and confirmed in an exchange of recap messages). The seller should ensure that, at latest upon signature of the agreement, it provides the buyer with the name, location and all necessary payment coordinates for the deposit holding bank nominated by the seller. Unlike Saleform 2012, the obligation to pay the deposit within the stipulated period is not expressly conditional upon the deposit account being opened.

Under Saleform 2012 the buyer must “lodge” the deposit within the agreed number of days. This is taken to mean that the deposit holder must have actually received the monies within that time frame. However, under Nipponsale 1999 the buyer's obligation is to “remit” the deposit within the three banking days. This appears to mean that the buyer will have performed its obligations if it arranges for the deposit money to be remitted within the stipulated period, even if the money does not reach the designated bank until after expiry of that period. The parties could of course amend this provision to make it clear that the deposit payment must be received by the designated bank within the three banking days period. The buyer will often negotiate for that period to be stretched to five banking days.

5.16 NOTES ON SSF2011

SSF2011 follows market practice in requiring the buyer to pay a deposit into a joint account as security for the buyer's obligations under the contract. However, while it adopts a similar approach to the corresponding provisions of Saleform 2012 and Nipponsale 1999 there are some significant differences.

5.16.1 Deposit amount

Under SSF2011 the buyer is required to pay a deposit which is 10% of the purchase price. This amount is to be written into the contract at Box 8(i). Therefore, if the parties wish to agree a different deposit amount they will need to amend the printed terms both at Box 8 and Clause 1.

If, as a result of bank charges “imposed during the normal course of transfer” the amount received in the joint account is less than the full deposit amount, SSF2011 provides at lines 7–9 that the actual amount received will stand as due fulfilment of the buyer's obligation to pay the deposit. This operates as a waiver by the seller of its right to cancel the contract under Clause 12 if the full deposit is not received as a result of the imposition of bank transfer charges. Arguments aside as to the meaning of “normal course of transfer”, buyers may welcome this clarification although this issue is not often addressed by amendments to the printed terms of Saleform or Nipponsale. Sellers may feel that this is an unnecessary caveat to the requirement that they must receive the agreed deposit in full (in which case they may seek to strike out the wording in lines 7–9).

5.16.2 Timing for payment of the deposit

Whereas Saleform and Nipponsale adopt a “running clock” approach from the date of the agreement (and, in the case of Saleform 2012, the confirmation from the deposit holder, that the joint account has been opened), SSF2011 requires payment of the deposit with a value date no later than the date specified in Box 8(i)(b). In order to ensure that remittance can be made, the seller – at lines 11–12 – is obliged to arrange the opening of the joint escrow account at least two days prior to the specified value date. For its part, the buyer must arrange for bank-to-bank confirmations (from their remitting bank to the bank which will hold the deposit) that:

the buyer and, if different, the remitting party, is a known customer of the bank; and

should the deposit holding bank also require it, confirmation that they know the source of funds.

In lines 18–17 of SSF2011 there is then a general requirement imposed on both seller and buyer to comply with all anti-money laundering laws and regulations of the country in which the deposit holding bank is located.

Clause 1 of SSF2011 contemplates that the deposit will be held by a bank. Where, as is often the case, the deposit holder is not a bank, suitable amendments to the printed terms of Clause 1 (and Box 8) will be necessary.

Whilst the deposit account is required to be a joint account, it is the seller's sole obligation to arrange for its opening within the stipulated time frame. In this regard the deposit holding bank may be unwilling to open the account without receipt of appropriate “KYC” documentation from the buyer. The bank-to-bank confirmations may not be sufficient for this purpose and, in any case, the buyer is not obliged to provide these until the time it remits its deposit. The seller must therefore make due investigation with its intended deposit holding bank as to what will be required by them from the buyer and then ensure that the buyer can and will provide this in good time. Depending on the outcome of such investigation a suitable amendment to the printed terms of Clause 1 may be desirable.

Conversely, the buyer must take care that its remitting bank will be willing to send the required bank-to-bank confirmations. The first confirmation should be straightforward as the remitting bank will presumably have an existing relationship (or at least carried out its own “KYC” investigations) with the buyer. It is noted, however, that if the remitting party is not the buyer, this bank-to-bank confirmation must be made in respect of both the remitting party and the buyer. In such case it will be necessary for the buyer to ensure that it is also a known customer of the remitting bank. The second bank-to-bank confirmation relating to the source of funds is only applicable if the deposit holding bank requires it. As the buyer must arrange for the bank-to-bank confirmations to be sent latest when the deposit monies are remitted, it will be necessary to ascertain in advance whether this second confirmation is in fact required.

If, for any reason, the deposit monies are remitted but the bank-to-bank confirmations are not sent, the buyer is placed in a situation where it is in breach of contract but the deposit is already in the joint account. In practice, if the necessary confirmations are sent later but without holding up delivery, it is difficult to see what loss the seller will have suffered.

5.16.3 Compliance with anti-money laundering laws

Lines 15–17 of SSF2011 impose a general obligation on both buyer and seller to comply with the anti-money laundering laws and regulations of the country in which the deposit holding bank is located. This is a very widely drafted provision and although it is located within the deposit clause, arguably the provision applies to any relevant laws and regulations and not only those which may affect the deposit. On the other hand, compliance with this provision may not be sufficient for the deposit holding bank if its internal anti-money laundering requirements are more stringent than those laid down by the country in which it is located.

中文译文

挪威船舶买卖合同格式第2条款

2.保证金/押金

为确保本协议的正确执行，自以下之日起的三（3）银行工作日内，买方应该将船舶购买价款的 %，或如果未填写，10%（百分之十），作为保证金存入代表合同双方共同利益的保证金持有人计息账户：

(i).本协议的正本文件已经签署并且通过电子邮件或传真交换之后；

(ii).该保证金的持有人以书面形式通知合同双方该账户已经开通之后。

该保证金应该按照双方联名的书面指示进行放款。若由此产生的利息，应该归还给买方。因保管和释放本保证金而产生的任何费用应该由合同双方平均分摊。合同双方应该毫无延迟地提供给保证金持有人建立和维持该账户必需的所有文件。

5.14 简介

在船舶买卖合同中，按惯例，为了充分履行合同义务，买方需要提供现金存款作为合同担保。这一规定明确包含在Saleform2012格式第2条款内。

5.14.1 保证金数额

卖方将希望确保买方所提供的保证金数额足以激励买方完成买卖交易，如果没有这样做，该保证金的金额将能够完全补偿卖方。买方主要关注的将是在签署合同时能够取得和锁定（买卖）所需的现金的能力，以及承担可能无法完成购买的风险。

除了这些考虑的因素之外，可能包括以下相关的因素：

(1). 卖方和买方是否存在有现成的关系；

(2). 是否有相似外形的二手船舶替代的可能性；

(3). 买方的财务状况；

(4). 合同签署后，至交付船舶之间的时间预期长度。

虽然这些因素可能会导致对保证金数额艰苦谈判，市场已有的习惯做法是买方支付相当于购买价格的10％作为保证金。这体现在1993年Saleform格式，Nipponsale格式和SSF2011格式。每一个合同格式都明文规定，保证金将是购买价格的10％。如果双方当事人是以这些标准格式的任意一个订立合同，并希望谈判超过10％的保证金数额，这有必要对印就条款进行修改。

在Saleform2012格式中，双方需要在第32行空白处填写一个约定同意的百分比值，但如果他们没有这样做，这就规定保证金将是购买价格的10％。相应地，如果保证金超过购买价格的10％金额，必须在第32行印就条款空白处填写上约定同意的金额。

虽然Saleform2012格式仍然需要修改印就条款，以订立保证金超过10%比例的合同，然而，该版本反映了Saleform格式拟定者的意图希望消除10％这一概念作为标准。在Saleform2012格式中包含默认值（10%）是为了延续原有的体系，也是旨在保证该格式合同为市场习惯做法提供一个解决方案，如果合同双方未能在相关空白处填写保证金数额的话。

有时买方与卖方也可能约定同意不需要保证金的情况（或许是因为他们已经安排了替代性的担保协议，或者，另一种情况，是因为他们的商业关系意味着他们很放心依此条款进行交易）。在这些情况下，如果是使用任何一种标准合同格式，这将有必要，不仅删除保证金条款，而且对在标准格式的其它条款中提到的保证金做出相应的删除和修改。

5.14.2 保证金持有人

在船舶买卖谈判时，对于买卖双方来说，保证金持有人的身份是一个关键议题。每一方都必须不会怀疑该存款持有人的财务状况和诚信，并委托他按照合同条款保管和释放保证金。在实践中，最常见的服务提供者是银行，船舶经纪人和律师事务所。

在Saleform2012格式引入‘保证金持有人’这一术语。要求合同双方在定义部分（第19-20行）填写上保证金持有人的名称和地址，但是，如果他们未这样做，将由卖方银行履行这一职责。这种处理方法也与Saleform2012其他条款的规定相吻合，即合同双方可以自由约定同意某些具体的问题，但万一他们未能约定，也设定了默认的情况。

把保证金放置在保证金持有人之处的安排，应该是为了不会给予卖方或买方单独的控制保证金的权利，这是因为，万一买卖合同的违约情况存在争议，每一方都希望保证知道另一方不能单方面要求解除或者返还保证金或任何部分保证金。同样重要的是，保证金持有人将不能拥有任何留置权利，或者凭借其与卖方及/或买方的关系，无权抵消帐户上的款项（或其中任何部分款项）。为此，船舶买卖合同通常规定，保证金将是以买卖双方的名义共同保管。由于保证金的持有人通常不会是买卖合同的当事方，合同双方应确保与联合保证金账户有关的持有人的委托授权应当符合买卖合同条款。买方业已知道，将担保保证金存放在以卖方单独的名义开立的账户，就会受其唯一的控制。

通常，卖方，买方和保证金持有人会订立单独协议以规范的联合账户的开立，运行和结束。该协议的条款（通常称之‘（有条件的）第三方代管转让协议’）将根据交易的具体情况各有不同，但是，典型的是，将针对下列事项：

(1). 卖方和买方授权处理的联合帐户的代表的姓名（也许是样本复制签名）；

(2). 利息率，如果有的话，将是保证金累积的利息；

(3). 支付银行费用的责任；

(4). 释放保证金的机制。通常情况下，第三方代管转让协议规定，按照卖方和买方联名的书面指示释放（或退还）保证金，否则，只有在收到与买卖合同有关的不可上诉的终局仲裁裁决书或获得法院判决书，保证金持有人才能释放（或返回）此款项；

(5). 该帐户的关闭。

5.14.3 何时必须支付保证金？

买方希望确保规定的时间足够充裕以使其将保证金存放到持有人之处。若买方未能及时存放保证金，卖方将有权根据第13条款取消合同，并要求赔偿其损失，而且连同利息在内的全部费用。

Saleform2012格式第2条款（第33-38行）规定，在满足下列条件之后3银行工作日内存放保证金：

(i).本协议的正本文件已经签署并且通过电子邮件或传真交换之后；

(ii).该保证金的持有人以书面形式通知合同双方该账户已经开通之后。

在Saleform2012格式中引入这些条件，目的是确保买方有充足的时间将保证金存放到指定的保证金账户。在1993年Saleform格式，规定是在‘本协议订立之日起’3个银行工作日之内存放保证金。要求如此之快开立联合账户，是实际中面临的难题，合同双方经常发现这一规定难以实行，普遍是对Saleform1993格式第2印就条款做出相应的修改。

在开始起算时间之前，要求保证金持有人必须以书面形式向合同双方确认保证金账户已经开通，这明确澄清了买方存放保证金的前提条件。然而，对于（何时）收到确认书并没有明确的时间限制，或者未能在规定的时间内开立保证金账户也没有规定任何后果。相反，在Saleform2012格式第2条款（第41-42行）规定，合同双方必须毫无延迟地提供给保证金持有人建立和维持该账户必需的所有文件。

在有些情况下，由于合同双方的过失（或有时并没有违约），不能及时开通保证金账户。当合同一方认为延误如此之长，不再希望受到合同的约束，在这种背景下，提出很好的理由以有效地终止合同，可能是具有挑战性。如果买方和卖方需要在这一点上更肯定些，他们可能引用赋予任何一方有权解除合同的条款，并规定，如果在规定的时间内，保证金持有人未能确认开通保证金账户，且任何一方本身并没有违约，就其本身而言不用承担责任。

买方应该始终确保在这一规定的时间段，给予其银行足够的时间将保证金转移到保证金持有人的账户内。

在这方面，买方在规定的时间段之内将保证金‘存入’（相对于Saleform1993格式中使用的‘支付’这一术语）保证金持有人账户的义务，清楚表明，保证金账户必须在此时刻收到该款项，而不仅仅是由买方银行汇出该款项。

在标准印就条款中，每次提到‘银行日’之前，经常插入‘净’或‘完整’这些词语加以修改；这主要是强调该有关期限是由约定的完整天数构成的。

5.14.4 反洗钱和‘了解你的客户’的规定

在打击洗钱的斗争中，日益严格的规定强加在信贷和金融机构和公司身上，为了确保他们每个客户有适当的支持性证据加以正确的识别。

在英国，有关KYC的规定和反洗钱的规定是来自于以下法律规则：

(1). 金融行动特别工作组——一个跨政府的部门和决策机构，其目的是为了打击洗钱（除其他事项外）；

(2). 欧盟的指令；

(3). 2002年犯罪不正当得益法（POCA）；

(4). 2000年反恐怖主义法；

(5). 2007年反洗钱条例。

2001年第97号关于利用金融系统进行洗钱为目的的欧盟指令（修订欧洲经济共同体1991年第308号欧洲理事会的指令），是更新早期的欧盟法规（其中集中打击毒品犯罪所得的洗钱行为），包括可疑交易的报告和在该领域的国际合作。

由于所适用的法律规定的犯罪行为，以及确保对客户合理谨慎的调查符合规定，《2007反洗钱条例》规定要开展某些特定的检查。这些包括：

(1). 依据从可靠和独立来源之处获得的文件、数据或信息，识别客户和验证他们身份；

(2). 如果受益船东不是他们的客户，识别受益船东的身份，以及采取适当的措施，依据风险敏感程度，验证其身份（这包括掌握该法人的所有权问题和控制结构）；和

(3). 获得信息的目的和预期的商业关系的性质。

由于这些强制性规定的结果（以及最终认定不满足这些规定的后果）某些金融机构越来越不愿意充当船舶买卖交易的保证金持有者。对于那些有能力并愿意充当这一角色的机构，需要完全满足反洗钱和‘了解你的客户’的规定要求，可能会在他们收到保证金款项之前产生显著的延误。

5.14.5 利息

虽然Saleform2012格式第2条款要求买方在合同签署之后很快开设保证金账户，第3条款规定，在船舶交接时将保证金作为部分购买价款释放给卖方。这意味着卖方对保证金没有直接的权利，所以，直到保证金释放给卖方最后一刻，保证金的法定所有权仍将归属于买方。由此可见，直到这一刻到来之前，该保证金款项所产生的存款利息是属于买方。

Saleform2012格式明文规定，联合账户将是‘代表双方利益’（第33行），但其产生的任何利息属于买方。

5.14.6 保证金和全损

Saleform2012格式第5条(e)款规定，如果船舶在交接前发生全损、推定全损或协议全损，保证金（连同任何利息收益）应该立即释放给买方。

5.14.7 未支付保证金

在Saleform 2012年第13条款（第29-33行）赋予卖方解除合同的权利并要求赔偿其遭受的损失以及连同利息在内的所有相关费用，如果买方未在规定期限内支付保证金。

5.14.8 保证金和转售

如果，继出售该船舶之后，再转售给另一个买方，合同各方都需要特别小心，注意在每一个合同下，关于支付和释放保证金方面，他们自己的权利和履行义务的能力，不会因提出简化转售过程而做的任何实际安排而遭受到损害。

在San Pedro Compania Armadora SA v. Henry Navigation Co Ltd and Pablo Compania Maritima de Desarrollo SA (The Ranger) (1970)案， S同意将船舶出售给H，按照合同规定，H需要支付相对于10%购买价款的保证金，并且确定6月30日为合同解除日。H同意以同样的价格和保证金条款将该船舶再转售给P，但5月31日作为合同解除日。第一份合同项下的保证金，是由P按照第二份合同规定支付的款项来提供的资金。有关款项被汇到以P和B的联合名义（B是作为S的代理人）设立一个计息账户中。在6月1日，P因为H未能在合同规定的解约日之前交付船舶而解除了第二份合同。在6月13日，S依据第一份合同提出交付船舶，但H拒绝接受。在6月17日，S视H的行毁约而取消了第一份合同。于是，S试图要求将保证金释放给他。Pablo（简称P）抗拒，但Mocatta法官判决如下：

‘因此，我对此情形作出判决，Pablo（简称P，台湾一家船公司）同意他们的名字可以被用作开设联合账户的两个名字之一。其他的名字，就他们已知，是原告（作为Ranger船舶的卖方，希腊一家船公司）的代理人，但卖方并不没有与Pablo签订买卖合同关系，Pablo是作为另一个合同的一方当事人。我毫不怀疑，从文件中作出的正确推论是，Pablo是知道存在有3月7日原告和H订立的合同以及合同条款。似乎不可避免得出这样的结论：Pablo已经批准使用他们的名字作为联合账户两个持有人其中之一，Pablo也追认使用他们的名字作为H的代理人……因此，由于原告和H之间的关系，在违约情况的发生时，前者有权要求保证金，Pablo，根据我的判断，是不能向原告索回保证金（只能向H公司）。因此，我对该争议的判决有利于原告。’

在保证金被作为多个合同当事方的履约义务担保情况时（如在转售的情况下），所有合同各方（包括保证金持有人）最好谨慎地以单独协议列明涉及保证金保管和释放等事宜的条款。

5.14.9 保证金和指定代理人

当买方在保证金存入后，指定一名替代买方，对于卖方来说，需要采取适当的步骤以确保，万一买方违约的情况下，保证金仍然满足作为担保的角色，同时也可以在船舶交接时释放给卖方。作为规范保证金保管和释放事宜的第三方代管转让协议，可能需要修改以反映指定替代买方的情况。

5.15日本船舶买卖合同格式注释

Nipponsale格式第2条(a)款规定：要求买方支付10％的保证金到卖方指定银行保管的联合账户。保证金利息收益归属于买方账目，以及合同每方支付银行保管保证金一半的手续费。在1999年Nipponsale格式，买方需要在买卖协议签署当天起3个‘银行工作日’内汇出保证金。 ‘银行工作日’的定义是参照第15栏中指定的地方所做的规定。

像Saleform2012格式一样，1999年Nipponsale格式明文规定，保证金将作为买方执行协议的担保，并应该作为部分购买价款支付给卖方（第2条(b)款阐明了有关‘购买价款余额’的买方义务 ）。

为了避免任何非故意地缩短该期限，买方应确保协议给定时间是合同双方签字的日期，而不是更早的日期（例如，约定同意主要条款的日期，以及确认要点重述信息交换的日期）。卖方应当保证，最迟于协议的签署时，提供给买方由卖方指定保管保证金的银行的名称，位置和所有付款必要的配套手续。不像2012年Saleform格式，在规定期限内支付保证金的义务，没有明确规定以开通保证金账户为条件。

在Saleform2012格式中，买方必须在约定的天数内存入保证金。这被认为是指保证金持有人必须在该时间范围内实际收到这笔款项。然而，在1999年Nipponsale格式下，买方的义务是在3个银行工作日内‘汇出’保证金。这似乎意味着，如果在规定的期限内已经安排汇出这笔保证金款项，买方即是履行了他的义务，即使是直至该期限届满后，这笔钱没有到达指定的银行。当然，合同双方也可以修改这一条款，以明确表示，指定的银行必须在3个银行工作日期限内收到保证金付款。买方也将通常会谈判要求将此期限延长至5个银行工作日。

5.16 新加坡船舶买卖合同格式注释

SSF2011格式遵循市场惯例，规定买方将保证金支付到联合账户，以作为买方履行合同义务的担保。然而，尽管它针对Saleform2012格式和Nipponsale1999格式中相应的条款，也采用了类似的处理方法，这还是有一些显著差异。

5.16.1 保证金数额

根据SSF2011格式，买方需要支付购买价格的10%作为保证金。这一数额被写进合同第8栏(i)项 。因此，如果双方希望约定同意不同的保证金数额，他们将需要同时修改在第8栏和第1条款的印就术语。

如果，由于银行‘在正常转账过程中强制征收’费用的原因，联合账户收到的金额小于全部保证金数额，SSF2011格式在第7-9行规定，实际收到的金额也将视为买方已经充分履行支付保证金的义务。这作用是作为卖方放弃其根据第12条款解除合同的权利，如果是由于银行征收转账费用的原因而没有收到全部保证金的话。如果对‘正常转账过程’存在争议，这可能需要买方对此进行澄清，尽管如此，Saleform或者Nipponsale格式印就条款修订版，也还没有经常考虑处理这一问题。卖方可能会觉得对于他们必须全额收到约定保证金这一规定，这一告诫是不必要的（在这种情况下，他们可能会试图删掉第7-9行的文字）。

5.16.2 支付保证金的时间

尽管Saleform格式和Nipponsale格式采用了自协议之日起‘连续时钟计时’的方法（而且，在Saleform 2012合同格式情况下，从保证金持有人确认已经开通该联合帐户开始起），SSF2011格式规定，支付保证金以及起息日应不迟于第8栏(i)(b)标明的日期。为了确保可以进行汇款，卖方有义务（第11-12行）最迟应在规定的起息日前2天安排开通联合代管账户。就这部分而言，买方必须提供银行到银行的确认函（从他们的汇款银行，到保管保证金的银行）：

(1). 买方，和汇款方（若非原买方）是银行的熟知客户；

(2). 若保证金保管银行也要求，提供他们知晓资金来源的确认函。

在SSF2011格式第16-17行，这还有一般性的规定，强制买卖双方遵守保证金保管银行所在国家的所有反洗钱法律和法规。

在SSF2011格式第1条款考虑由银行保管保证金。在此，由于通常的情况下，保证金持有人不是银行，这有必要对第1条款（和第8栏）印就条款进行适当的修改。

虽然保证金账户必须是一个共同账户，卖方的唯一义务是在规定的时间期限内安排开通该账户。在这方面，保证金保管银行可能不愿意在没有收到来自买方的‘了解你的客户’适当的文件之前开立该帐户。银行对银行的确认函，可能不足以满足这一要求，在任何情况下，直到汇出保证金当时，买方都没有义务提供这些资料。因此，卖方连同预期保证金保管银行一起，必须进行应有的调查，他们需要从买方那里获得什么资料，然后确保买方能够并将会在适当时候提供给他们。根据这样的调查结果，对第1印就条款进行适当的修改可能是值得的。

相反，买方必须特别小心他的汇款银行将会愿意给出所需的银行确认函。第一个确认函，应当是比较简单，因为汇款银行大概与买方之间存在有一定的关系（或至少对其进行了‘了解你的客户’的调查）。然而，还应当注意的是，如果汇款方不是买方，其所提供的银行确认函，必须是涉及汇款方和买方二者情况。在这种情况下，买方将有必要确保汇款方也是汇款银行的熟知客户。关于资金来源的第二个银行确认函，仅适用于保证金保管银行要求的情况。由于买方最迟必须在汇出保证金时提供银行确认函，他有必要事先确认实际上是否需要这第二个确认函。

如果，因任何理由，保证金款项已经汇出，但还没有发出银行对银行确认函，买家处于处于违约的尴尬地位，这时保证金已经打进联合账户之下。在实践中，如果必需的确认函延误发送，但并没有妨碍船舶交接，这很难看到卖方将会遭受什么损失。

5.16.3 遵守反洗黑钱法例

在SSF2011格式第15-17行，强加买卖双方一般性的义务遵守保证金保管银行所在国家的所有反洗钱法律和法规。这一条文拟定地非常广泛，虽然它位于定保证金条款之内，可能有争议说，这一条文是否适用于任何相关的法律和法规，而不只是那些可能会影响保证金的法律法规。在另一方面，遵守这一规定可能还不足够保障保证金保管银行，如果其内部的反洗钱要求比它所在的国家规定更严格的话。

译者简介

魏长庚船长出生于河南商丘睢县，1996-2000 年在大连海事大学学习，获得航海技术专业学士学位。具有16年海上船舶航行经验，做过7条船(包括20多万吨的Cape size船舶)远洋船长，目前任职于华洋海事中心。魏长庚船长一直热爱海商法（重点是英国海商法）的学习，并致力海商法的翻译工作，包括Informa出版的Bill of Lading（提单），Laytime and Demurrage《装卸时间与滞期费》（中英文对照--第7版）等书籍。