法律英语试题2013-2014

2013-2014学年第二学期

华侨大学法学院期末考试试卷

考试科目：法律英语考核类型：A卷考试时间：120 分钟

学号姓名授课教师骆旭旭

(注意：所有的答案（包括选择题）应做在空白答题纸上)

Exercise 1: Translate the following sentence into Chinese.(30%)

The dominant purpose in starting the public enterprises had been public good and profit motive was secondary; however, of late the scenario has changed. With the liberalisation of markets the public undertakings are in direct competition with the private players and have to have profit motive in mind. If not, there have been criticisms by industry on the unequal treatment meted out to the private players. Here it is important to note the definition of "enterprise" under the Competition Act. It makes no distinction between a private and a public enterprise/undertaking. In fact it even includes a department of the Government which does not perform a "sovereign function".

Functionally, the public undertakings have been broadly classified into four heads:

?Financial Institutions, such as Life Insurance Corporation of India, Reserve Bank of India, Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Ltd, Film Finance Corporation Ltd, Unit Trust of India, Industrial Reconstruction Bank, etc.

?Promotional and Development Undertakings, such as Rehabilitation Housing Corporation Ltd, National Research Development Corporation Ltd, Food Corporation of India, Central Warehousing Corporation, National Small Industries Corporation Ltd, etc.

?Commercial and Industrial Undertakings, such as State Trading Corporation, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd, Indian Airlines Corporation, Air India, etc.

?Public Utilities are those undertakings which render certain essential services to the people, like transportation, electricity, communications, energy, etc. The objective of such undertakings is to provide services to the community economically and efficiently and making profit is not the primary aim.

Exercise 2: Translate the following sentence into Chinese.(30%)

At the height of the global financial bubble in 2007, approximately two-thirds of U.S. investors owned securities of non-U.S. companies; the U.S. gross trading activity in foreign securities alone was $7.5 trillion; and foreign trading activity in U.S. securities exceeded $33 trillion. The statistical comparison of the global trade in “U.S. securities” and “foreign securities” suggests that sec urities are homogeneous globally when, in fact, the concept, meaning, regulatory treatment, and use of the term “securities” varies significantly between countries and, more ascetically, between the United States and other major global securities markets. Quintessential securities, such as stocks and bonds, still dominate the global trade in securities, but the definition and regulatory treatment of these securities and myriad other financial activities differ considerably across the globe depending on how the financial sector is structured and regulated in each country. Thus, this Article analyzes the disparate global concepts and definitions of a “security” by comparing the scope of the U.S. federal securities laws definition of a security with its counterparts in a subjective sample of four major global and regional financial centers: the United Kingdom, Australia, India, and South Africa (collectively, Selected Countries).

Securities are unique in that they developed and operate globally without global securities treaties, legally binding or coordinated global securities rules, or even global consensus on what they are or how best to regulate them globally. The global disparities in securities laws are, therefore, as old as global finance itself. Nonetheless, the global disparities in securities laws assumed greater significance during and immediately after the 2007-2008 global financial crisis, as the world grappled with the exponential growth of global finance in the last three decades and the need to regulate it. Traditional banks and non-banking financial institutions, like hedge funds and private equity funds, operate globally, and markets for financial activities are global. For example, the total global issuance of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs)--re-securitizations of other forms of debt--peaked in 2007 at $179 billion. Moreover, the recent global financial crisis originated in the U.S. subprime mortgage and other securitized debt markets, but it quickly spread globally, because U.S. financial institutions--fueled partly by foreign capital--globally issued, held, and sold toxic CDOs, Residential-Mortgage Backed Securities (RMBSs), Credit Default Swaps (CDSs), and other securitized debt. These toxic securities that supported the U.S. housing mar ket were purchased by “foreign countries, their central banks, and their commercial banks” as well as other investors.

Exercise 3: Translate the following Chinese into English.(40%)

大宗商品现货交易与期货交易具有相同的起源，是商品交易从简单的民事属性向金融属性发展的不同阶段的产物。我国的经济改革和金融改革的不断深入，社会对于金融、投资的市场需求强劲。我国期货交易的强行政监管，导致了我国的期货交易发展相对落后，难于满足市场需求。电子信息技术的发展和网络的进一步普及，大宗商品现货交易逐渐的电子化，具有投资和融资功能。由于缺乏明确的制度设计和法律规定，大宗商品现货交易蓬勃发展的背后，也出现了一系列的案件。而监管部门“各司其职、事后监管”的消极放任方式是对市场强劲需求和法律制度欠缺的无奈反应。2012年修改了《期货交易管理条例》和2013年出台的《商品现货市场交易特别规定（试行）》明确划分期货交易和现货交易，并区分监管的模式并不能适应大宗商品现货交易综合性发展的趋势和需求。实证考察国内主要大宗商品现货交易市场，发现这些大宗商品交易市场的交易模式难于摆脱投资和融资属性。大宗商品现货交易市场监管的目的在于防范其可能的金融风险。金融非管制化背景下，我国应建立期货、现货一体化综合性功能监管制度，而非简单的分割监管的方式。