Close Menu

    Subscribe to Updates

    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Shnoop
    Subscribe
    • HOME
    • FINANCIAL AID
    • SCHOLARSHIPS
    • STUDENT LIFE
    • CAREER
    • CAMPUS
    • HOUSING
    • TIPS
    Shnoop
    You are at:Home»Scholarships»Lusina Ho and Hui Jing on The Dominance of Regulatory Oversight in Chinese Investment Trusts (Asia-Pacific Trusts Law, Volume 3)
    Scholarships

    Lusina Ho and Hui Jing on The Dominance of Regulatory Oversight in Chinese Investment Trusts (Asia-Pacific Trusts Law, Volume 3)

    Share

    “The Dominance of Regulatory Oversight in Chinese Investment Trusts“
    Lusina Ho and Hui Jing
    Asia-Pacific Trusts Law, Volume 3, Boundaries in Context, Part II, Chapter 10
    Hart Publishing
    Published online: May 2025

    Abstract: A fundamental tenet in the relationship between regulations and private law is their functional dichotomy. Private law deals with the adjudication of bilateral rights and duties between individuals. Its main purpose is to protect the rights of individuals from infringement by others. In contrast, regulations primarily serve public interests, and are typically enforced by regulatory agencies through administrative sanctions or criminal liability. In this chapter, we argue that the Chinese legal regime for investment trusts departs from this paradigmatic dichotomy. Regulatory supervision not only addresses public interest concerns, but also frequently displaces private law in resolving disputes amongst trust parties, blurring the boundary between private law and regulations. We examine the unique circumstances in China that account for this regulatory dominance and argue that it can be justified only as a temporary measure.

    Following this introduction, Part II discusses the main reason for regulatory dominance in China. We examine how the widespread use of investment trusts for shadow banking raises public interest concerns when private law rights are enforced in such trusts. In Part III, we explore the use and limitations of regulatory supervision to address both the public interest and private law concerns raised by trust (mal)practice. Part IV contends that whilst regulations can be an effective interim measure for addressing private law disputes, legislators should in the long term adopt a proactive approach and enact trust laws that clearly define the rights and responsibilities of the trust parties. Part V concludes.

    Full text of this chapter is available on SSRN, please click here.
    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    Previous ArticleHow Students Perform Identity in Cape Town’s Digital Culture
    Next Article What Does It Mean to Love Yourself?
    shnoop_ing3f1
    • Website

    Add A Comment

    Comments are closed.

    Recent Posts
    • Orange County Places New Regulations on ICE
    • Pretending Things Don’t Hurt
    • Situationship or Humiliationship? When It Goes Too Far
    • Spring Cleaning Your Dorm Has Major Mental Health Benefits — Here’s Where To Start
    • A Love Letter to Dublin
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Instagram
    • YouTube
    • TikTok
    • WhatsApp

    Orange County Places New Regulations on ICE

    Pretending Things Don’t Hurt

    Situationship or Humiliationship? When It Goes Too Far

    A spent statute? (Medical Law Review)

    Scholarships of the Week (February 23 – March 1, 2026)

    Gary Meggitt on Insurance Brokers and AI (New Book Chapter)

    © 2026 ThemeSphere. Designed by ThemeSphere.
    • Privacy Policy
    • Disclaimer
    • Terms & Conditions
    • About us
    • Contact us

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.