美國投資移民項目以借貸方式被拒案例分析
流覽次數：3550    添加時間:2018/2/2    來源:好想出國

每一個EB-5項目都提供了一個在渴望投資返還和退出的投資者之間的解決方案，但是EB-5的政策禁止以債務的方式來限定移民投資者和新的商業企業之間關係，當然在區域中心計畫新的商業企業（NCE）和創造就業實體（JCE）之間債務關係是沒問題的。限制的是商業企業和投資者之間。所以人們必須小心應對之間的界限，最近的案例就定義了這個界限。

最近公佈的關於區域中心計畫的五個案子的拒簽申訴被駁回了，問題出在有限合夥協議的條款當中。

有限合夥協議的9.1章闡明在客戶的I-829被批准的當天或之後的任何時間內，新商業企業的普通合夥人可以自行決定告知投資者他打算購買投資者的權息，購買價格包括他們的投資本金50萬美元以及應該支付的每年0.5%的利息。

考慮到美國移民局關於禁止擔保返還的政策內容和Izummi的案例，一般認為這個條款應該是能被美國移民局接受的。因為1：這個條款並沒有給予投資者要求返還投資的權力；2：新的商業企業的普通合夥人並沒有保證他將成為那個買者；3：沒有具體明確的價格確認。但是，你錯了，根據美國移民局的分析，他們發現：

事實是，一般合夥人有權利購買或贖回，在協議中稱之為購買權，而不是有權力賣掉自己權息的申請人有權決定的。以前我們發現賣掉權息的選擇權是不被允許的借貸安排而不管能否實施。AAO承認Izummi的案例是另外一種類型的贖回協議賦予投資者賣出的權力，但是這個拒簽的決定依然超出了這個界限，即不僅這種安排是不可行的而且投資者也不可以保證某種特定成交的價格。

“確定的價格”問題是2017年12月份拒簽的關鍵，（有人想知道取決於利潤選擇的返還的不同）但這次拒簽開始出現了質疑有借貸類似條款的協議。

綜合審視，該協議闡明一旦投資人的綠卡條件被移除，NCE的一般合夥人會返還投資者本金及收益，類似於利息支付，儘管這份擬定在文件中不是以借貸的特徵出現，但包含了同樣的借貸元素（本金，利息，返款階段）而這些元素通常出現在借貸協 議當中。

注意：因為EB-5項目投資當中，大部分項目是以這種借貸的方式出現的，而不是以股權的方式，這種拒簽的苗頭應該引起大家的足夠重視！

美國法律聯營網執行長臧煜卓先生特邀美國ALC區域中心執行長John沈先生對上面案例和ALC區域中心做對比：

在JCE還款給NCE過程中一直有風險存在，而且貸款本金在移民申請沒有結束前不會還款到NCE。在還款過程中，永遠有貸款違約風險，所以道理上講沒有任何一分錢是有保證可以回到NCE。這在EB-5行業是一個普遍基本原則，所以移民局都能接受貸款模式。

有限合夥協議是投資人在加入有限合夥時，和普通合夥人(NCE)共同簽署的協議。協議裏面有公司解體的條款，比如在什麼情況下解體，解體後資產如何分配，但是並沒有任何條款說明NCE的資金在什麼時間點以多少的量歸還給EB-5有限合夥人。有限合夥協議是完全合規，我們使用了很多年，移民局沒有任何質疑。

上文中指有限合夥協議中有些做法在一定時間點，普通合夥人要買回他的有限合夥人的股權，其實這是一種變相保證收益的方法，這當然違反了風險原則。我一點都不奇怪因為這種原因被拒，當然我們的協議中不存在這些東西。

我們所有還款方式前期條件是移民申請不再進行中了，已經脫離移民申請軌道以後，按照市場價值，ALC再把資金歸還給投資人，這本身並不和移民局政策衝突。

臧煜卓先生提醒：由此可知，任何一個投資項目裏的法律文件，都可能左右移民局的最後審判，投資人在選擇項目時最好請專業律師分析，代表客戶與區域中心洽談對自己最有利的條件。

英文原文：
Every EB-5 offering is a balance between natural investor desire for a return and exit strategy, and EB-5 policy prohibiting debt arrangements between the immigrant investor and new commercial enterprise. (As a reminder, there’s no problem with debt between the NCE and job-creating entities in regional center offerings. The restriction is between the EB-5 investor and NCE.) People who prepare offering documents have to walk a fine line, and should note recent cases that help define where USCIS thinks that line lies.

Five recently-posted cases in the 2017 folder for I-526 appeals (DEC192017_01B7203, DEC192017_02B7203, DEC222017_01B7203, DEC222017_02B7203, DEC222017_03B7203) deal with investors in a regional center project who were denied due to a provision in their Limited Partnership Agreement. Here’s the targeted provision:

Article 9.1 of the partnership agreement provides that at any time on or after the date that a foreign investor’s Form I-829 has been adjudicated, the NCE’s general partner may, in its sole discretion, notify the investor of its desire to purchase (i.e. redeem) his or her interest. The purchase price will include 100 percent of his or her capital contribution ($500.000) plus all accrued and unpaid preferred returns. ….Preferred return is one half of one percent (0.5%) per annum on the total unreturned Capital Contributions [$500.000] of an investor.

Considering the USCIS Policy Manual policy on guaranteed returns and Matter of Izummi, one might think this provision would be acceptable because (1) this provision doesn’t give the investor a right to demand the return (since only the general partner can initiate the buyout), (2) the NCE general partner is not guaranteed to be a willing buyer (since the purchase “may” happen at its sole discretion), and (3) a certain price is not assured (since the purchase itself is not assured). But one would be wrong, according to the analysis by USCIS and the AAO. They found that：

The fact that the general partner has the right to purchase or redeem, which the
partnership agreement references as a “buyout right,” rather than the Petitioner having a right to sell his interest is not determinative. We previously found that a sell option was an impermissible debt arrangement regardless of whether it was enforceable.AAO admits that Matter of Izummi treated a different kind of redemption agreement that gave the Petitioner a sell right, but “the language of the decision goes beyond those facts, explaining not only that the enforceability of the arrangement is immaterial but that an investor may not be assured of receiving a certain price.”

The “certain price” issue is the main leg to stand on for the December 2017 denials. (One wonders about the difference a profit-contingent preferred return would’ve made). But the decisions also appear to question debt-like elements generally.

A review of the record as a whole reveals an arrangement where once the conditions on the Petitioner’s resident status have been removed, the NCE would likely redeem the Petitioner’s original capital contribution and pay him or her a modest “preferred return,” similar to an interest payment. Such an arrangement, though not characterized as a loan in the offering documents, contains the same elements (principal, interest, repayment period) that one would find in a debt agreement.

AAO concludes,
Considering the partnership agreement and offering memorandum together, we find that the Petitioner did enter into an impermissible debt arrangement with an understanding that the general partner intended to repay the full investment plus preferred returns. This arrangement is not permitted under the broad language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) (definition of “invest”).


文章來源：好想出國