Introduction

In Hong Kong, there are basically four forms of consensual security device available to secure intangible personal property, namely the legal mortgage, equitable mortgage, equitable charge and pledge. In contrast, China has only one form of security device over intangible property, namely the pledge.

In Hong Kong, the creation, perfection and publicity of the security devices are in some cases governed by general law, in others by legislation, and in yet others by a combination of both. The applicable law is determined by a number of factors, such as the nature of the security device and the type of intangible personal property concerned. In contrast, in China, the creation, perfection and publicity of the security devices are primarily governed by the Property Law and the Security Law, the Supreme Court's Judicial Interpretation and various administrative regulations.

The objectives of this chapter are to examine:

• the diametrically opposed substantive and procedural rules governing the creation, perfection and publicity of the above-mentioned security devices over intangible personal property in Hong Kong and China, and the cost involved;

• whether the rules relating to the creation, perfection and publicity of the security devices have satisfied the criteria established in Chapter 1 in respect of these functional mechanisms.