個人對個人線上借貸平台之研究

Abstract

個人對個人線上借貸平台(Peer-to-Peer Lending Platform)係起源於微型授信。自2005年營利性個人對個人線上借貸平台問世後，因其免除間接金融模式所衍生之高額交易成本，故於市場上快速成長。惟現行制度下，是否有足以適用以管制個人對個人線上借貸平台之規範存在並不明確。美國證管會(SEC)於2008年選擇以公開發行有價證券之模式認定個人對個人線上借貸平台之交易，以企圖保護平台上之投資人，然而美國證管會之管制模式，實際上並無法保護平台上之投資人，反而使得投資人需額外承擔其他風險。 此外，美國證管會之管制模式，使得個人對個人線上借貸平台之營運成本大幅增加。本論文以美國法上以證券法規管制相關個人對個人線上借貸平台之適法性與適當性為核心，檢討美國最高法院就證券法上有價證券所建立之標準，並探討以證券法規管制借貸平台，是否有助於管制目的之達成。 再者，個人對個人線上借貸平台為平台運作之便利性與效率性，其必然需提供支付服務，此使得平台端本身同時居於第三方支付中介之角色。而第三方支付中介服務是否為違反銀行法，於我國尚未有統一之見解。然以銀行法管制第三方支付中介服務，其並非妥適，故本論文亦參考比較法上之看法，試圖就銀行法上「收受存款」之行為加以界定。

Peer-to-Peer Lending Platform (P2P Lending Platform) is originated from MicroFinance. It grew up rapidly when it's fisrt emergence in 2005 because of the reduction of the cost of indirect financing transaction. However, it's not clear that there is or there is not any regulation could regulate this newly business model. In 2008, SEC issued a order that Prosper, a P2P Lending Platform in USA, to cease their operation because they violated the Security Law. Prosper has to fulfill the procedure of issue security publicly. The purpose of SEC is investors protection. However, the method of SEC is actually useless for investors protection. Instead, it makes the investors to burden extra risk. After the regulation of SEC, the compliance cost is much growing for the P2P Lending Platform. This thesis discusses the appropriateness and the legality of SEC order, and also discusses the standard of how to identify the security established by the Supreme court. Besides, for the efficiency and convenience, all most every P2P Lending Platform supply third-party payment service. Third-party payment may violate the Banking Law, cause it may identify as ' Deposit Taking'. But it's not a proper way to regulate the P2P Lending Platform by Banking Law. Therefore, the thesis refers to other opinion, try to eastalish the proper standard of 'Deposit Taking'.