本案争议的焦点是对中航证券公司委托西安成城公司代持的江南期货公司股权如何处理的问题。笔者认为,一、二审法院的裁处是正确的。尽管一、二审法院已经查明中航证券公司是江南期货公司的实际出资人,西安成城公司是代持股权人,但并没有裁决中航证券公司享有江南期货公司股权,而是根据该股权已被西安成城公司的债权人中行南郊支行申请执行中查封冻结的法律事实,依法驳回了中航证券公司 The focus of the case controversy is how to deal with the equity of Jiangnan Futures Company, which is entrusted by Xi’an Chengcheng Company by CATIC Securities Company. The author believes that the court of first and second instance is correct. Although the courts of first and second instance have ascertained that AVIC Securities is the actual contributor to Jiangnan Futures Company and Xi’an Chengcheng Company is the holder of the nominee, it has not ruled that AVIC Securities Company has the equity interest in Jiangnan Futures Company but based on the equity interest in Xi’an Chengcheng Company’s creditor Bank of China Nanbu Sub-branch of the implementation of the application for the freezing of legal facts, according to the law rejected the AVIC Securities Company