《民法典担保制度司法解释》第七十条所确立的保证金账户担保属于非典型担保，该规定既是对实践中习惯法的肯定和调整，又为将来保证金账户担保的裁判提供了指引。但是，以账户为载体的无形财产担保方式并非仅有保证金账户担保，金融领域的融资融券账户担保、证券经纪账户担保等与保证金账户担保具有类似的法律性质、交易结构、权利实现方式，但前者却并未像后者一样具备统一的裁判标准。该问题的出现源自对账户担保性质、公示方式以及实现规则的不统一。因此本文以案例分析和比较法分析的方式，从功能主义担保的角度针对账户担保的性质、公示方式以及权利实现规则进行思考和研究。无论是保证金账户担保、融资融券信用账户担保还是任何以账户为载体的无形财产的担保都是财产电子化的产物，已经具备去类型化特征，传统的物权种类无法对其进行定性。从担保财产所有权形式上转移至担保权人、担保人和担保权人对担保账户实行“共管共治”、担保权人强制平仓权的特点来看，账户担保在性质上属于非典型担保中的让与担保。传统的登记和占有作为物权公示方式也无法适用于账户担保，账户担保应当借鉴域外法的经验，以“控制”作为公示方式。“控制”是介于登记和占有中间的第三种公示方式，它摆脱了“占有”对有体物的绝对支配，强调对无形财产事实上的管理。取得控制的方式应当视不同类型的账户担保而定，签订控制协议可以作为取得控制的方式之一。虽然控制作为公示方式具备效率和灵活性，但为避免账户担保成为隐形担保，控制的第三人可识别性应当以标识担保账户等外在方式加以强调。确定账户担保客体的方式应当以“合理描述”为核心，只要描述能够合理识别担保财产的，担保即有效；依控制公示的担保物权优先于依其他方式公示的担保物权，均取得控制的依据时间先后确定担保物权优先顺位；担保期间内法院只能冻结账户而不能直接扣划，以免损害担保权人的优先受偿权。

The margin account security established in article 70 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Security System of the Civil Code is an atypical security, which affirms and adjusts the customary law in practice and provides a guideline for future adjudication of margin account security. However, the account as the carrier of the intangible property security mode is not only margin account security, the financial field of financing account security, securities brokerage account security and margin account security has a similar legal nature, transaction structure, the realization of the rights of the former does not have a unified standard of adjudication as the latter. The problem arises from the nature of the account security, publicity and the realization of the rules are not uniform. Therefore, this article is based on case study and comparative law analysis, from the perspective of functionalist security for the nature of the account security, the mode of publicity and the realization of the rights of the rules for reflection and research.Whether it is security in a margin account, security in a credit account for financing securities or any security in intangible property carried by an account, it is a product of the electronicization of property and has become so de-typified that it cannot be characterized by the traditional types of property right. In view of the formal transfer of ownership of the encumbered property to the security right holder, the ＂co-management＂ of the encumbered account by the guarantor and the security right holder, and the right of the security right holder to force the liquidation of a position, security over accounts is atypical security by nature of a security by way of cession.Traditional registration and possession as modes of publicity of rights in rem also cannot be applied to account security, which should draw on the experience of extraterritorial law and use ＂control＂ as a mode of publicity. ＂Control＂ is a third mode of publicity intermediate between registration and possession, which gets rid of the absolute domination of tangible objects by ＂possession＂ and emphasizes the de facto management of intangible property. The manner in which control is obtained should vary depending on the type of account security, and the conclusion of a control agreement may be one of the ways in which control is obtained. While control is efficient and flexible as a means of publicity, in order to avoid account guarantees becoming invisible, the third-party identifiability of control should be emphasized by external means, such as marking the guaranteed account.The manner of determining the object of a security right in an account should be centered on a ＂reasonable description＂, so long as the description can reasonably identify the encumbered property, the security is effective; a security right that is publicized by control has priority over a security right that is publicized in some other manner, and control is obtained in accordance with the order of time in determining the priority of the security right; the court may only freeze the account and not directly seize the account during the security period, so as not to jeopardize the priority of the security right holder. During the period of security, the court can only freeze the account and not make direct deductions, so as not to jeopardize the priority of the holder of the security right.