媒體上投資意見監管之研究—以非法經營投資顧問罪為中心

Abstract

金融市場由於商品與關聯產業的複雜，往往非一般投資人可完全自行掌握，而需仰仗專業投資顧問出具意見得以作為投資決策之依據。然投資意見的傳播並不僅止於較傳統的面對面投資諮詢服務，而乃至廣播、電視財經節目。甚至在近年，透過自媒體傳播包含投資分析或推介建議之投資意見，已成為年輕族群經常獲取投資訊息之管道。然而與此同時，除傳統地下投資顧問外，搭配Web 3.0所誕生的金融網紅產業，也可能成為投資意見監管之新場域。 本文自GME事件與社群媒體名人推介貼文等現象作為發想，試圖釐清我國證券投資信託及顧問法如何監管此類投資意見，在有無主管機關許可下適用各身分別之規範，與在傳播媒體上所能出具投資意見之界線。在檢視非法經營證券投資顧問業務罪構成要件之同時，討論釋字第634號所提供之一般性資訊標準，金管會所作出之解釋，再輔以判決以刻畫出實務見解對於各要件之標準，並嘗試討論所發現之問題，諸如一般性資訊之界線、非經濟利益之對價收取等問題。本文以為，以我國現有之框架而言，首先在一般性資訊之認定上可能太狹窄，且法條文字較抽象，可能使一般民眾不易預見，金管會宜再發布更詳細之函釋，甚至可能可以仿照英國金融監理局以PERG手冊方式再更清楚說明。在構成要件上將「直接或間接自委任人或第三人取得報酬」要件替代，同時透過比較法，參酌紐西蘭與英國法之認定方法，採取是否以商業手段經營出具投資意見業務替代報酬要件，較能涵蓋新型收益案型，免除多數案型仰賴對價檢驗關係之困境。

The complex nature of financial market products and its related industries are often difficult for common investors to fully comprehend on their own, thus requiring the input of professional investment advisors to inform their investment strategies. The dissemination of investment advice no longer stops at in-person investment advising services, but also available through radio broadcasts, televised financial programs. Even in recent years, investment advice circulated through social media became a popular venue for the younger generation looking for investment analyses and recommendations. Meanwhile, the Web 3.0 powered financial influencer industry may also become a potential focal point of regulations, alongside underground financial advisors. This thesis was inspired by events such as the GME short squeeze and social media celebrity financial recommendations, and sought to understand how the Securities Investment Trust and Consulting Act regulates investment advice, including the differences in applicable regulations, limits of providing investment advice in media depending on whether the advisor was authorized or not. In examining the elements that constitutes unauthorized securities investment consulting, this paper also discussed the “general information standard” set out in Judicial Yuan interpretation No.634, along with how the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) and the courts interpret such standards via case studies. Problems such as the boundaries of the general information standard and non-economic compensations were also explored. This research argues that first of all, in the current regulatory framework, the general information standard is too narrow and abstract, which makes it difficult to comprehend and foresee outcomes. This may be remedied by the FSC through publishing a more comprehensive and detailed explanation of the standard, even in the form of PERG manuals published by the Financial Conduct Authority of the United Kingdoms. Second, replacing the “in return for compensation obtained directly or indirectly from a principal or a third party” element with “by way of business” element from New Zealand and the UK regulations may accommodate newer forms of compensation schemes, eliminating the unwieldy need to draw correlation between giving advice and compensation.