從比較法觀點檢視我國金融消費者保護法

Abstract

金融創新的效應正在劇烈發酵中，一方面在於創造了資本市場源源不斷的活水，促使金融消費者將資金投入誘人的高額投資報酬率市場；金融業者為因應複合性金融商品之銷售，紛紛調整組織架構、成立金融控股公司以創造企業運作綜效。然而，看似榮景的運作機制背後的真相，卻是忽略追求高投資報酬率所帶來的高風險。首先於2007年爆發了美國次級房貸風暴，隨即引發骨牌效應，導致金融海嘯席捲全球金融體系，僅少數國家能倖免於難。進而，各個國家無不開始思考金融監理應改革之方向。綜觀現今各國所制定之金融監理政策，無論選擇以多元監理、或以單一監理為其金融監理改革方向，加強及擴大對於金融消費者之保護密度，皆列為金融監理之重點項目之一。然落實金融消費者之保護需要長遠且完整之金融法制規劃，才能真正消除金融法規套利及金融監理空白的發生可能，亦為本文所欲提醒之重點。 本文主旨即在提出此次全球金融海嘯危機餘波仍未平息之際，似亦應思考如何重新建構監理變化莫測的全球金融市場所帶來的影響，才能在事前即先做好保護金融消費者的第一道防線。由於我國金融相關立法一直以來以承襲外國立法例為作法，且已定調「金融監理一元化」為金融監理政策方向、欲建構「金融消費爭議解決機制單一窗口」，故本文以已於2011年施行之「金融消費者保護法」為討論中心，除了介紹世界主流國家－美國及英國－於金融監理改革過程中對於金融消費者保護之建制，基於我國已選擇階段性立法方式作為我國金融監理一元化改革之手段，本文再對於同為亞洲國家、且亦採階段性改革之韓國多加著墨介紹與比較，進而肯認建立一部單一整合各業法之金融監理法規，應為我國真正落實對於金融消費者保護的一個必要階段。而於現階段各業法各自運作、監理，多元之紛爭解決機構並存之情況，本文建議作法上可效法英國作法，建立一對話交流平台，提供各監理單位經由平台對各類型金融爭議型態之爭議處理方式進行交流、取得一致解釋方法及作法，未來即可將所累積之評議結果列為制定整合各業法之金融法規時之考量，以完整金融監理一元化之藍圖。

The affection from the financial innovation brings good and bad to the world, for good, it creates various high profitable financial product to attract more investors get into the capital market, and further pump up the cash flow. To fulfill the needs of promoting the derivative financial product, M&A, restructure activities arise, bulding up a finance holding company is a mainstream business model now and in the future ; on the contrary, however, the truth hidden behind the florescence is the invisible high risk accompanied with the high profit return of the financial product. The disaster began from 2007 subprime mortgage crisis in US, spread to other countries, and caused the world-wide financial crisis in 2007-2008. From here, people started to re-exam the financial supervision applied to their countries. Observing the financial policies of foreign countries, no matter in a diversification supervision or in a single one, to enhance the protection of the financial consumer is one of the impaortant policies at the end. Therefore, we here like to remind that, the consumer protection should be regulated based on a structured whole plan, if the regulatory arbitrage should be avoided. Since our financial regulations adopted from the foreign countries, our financial policies abided by the unified financial supervision concept, and we would like to establish a single ADR institution as well, the article would like to suggest that, in a holistic view, an integrated financial regulation should be made. Therefore, based on the thought of protecting financial consumers, the article brings out how the Financial Consumer Protection Act of US, UK formed during the process of financial supervision revolution. Also, the article studies the “Big Bang” in Korea, to provide an idea of three-phase legislative work and comparative details between the draft of Financial Consumer Protection Act of Korea and Financial consumer Protection Act of Taiwan for more reference. Last but not least, the article also recommends that, to achieve the short-term goal, we currently can establish a platform for the various ADRs in Taiwan to communicate with each other, to exchange the viewpoints while dealing the similar type of financial product, and finally to achieve the same consensus, for the future intergration financial regulation.