建立實質受益人名簿制度對洗錢防制影響之研究

Abstract

本文以公司法第22條之1為主要研究對象，以該條文是否可達到其立法目的作為主軸，討論若我國公司法人依照本條文實踐實質受益人名簿申報制度，是否能達到本條文欲建立「跨國際之防制洗錢制度」之目的。2018年我國公司法進行重大修正，於修正前集結各方學者專家及業界人士進行座談研討，惟即使各界已盡力求其完善，新法在適用上仍難免與理想有所差距，並且各條文之修正與增訂對於我國經濟環境及金融市場之影響也大不相同。該次修法所新增之公司法第22條之1，其立法緣由乃為透過揭露我國各公司背後之「實質受益人」，建立跨國際之防制洗錢體制。依照立法理由，本條文除了係為因應2018年APG對我國之第三輪洗錢防制評鑑及健全台灣洗錢防制體系外，實質受益人之資訊揭露亦為健全公司治理制度之重要環節，除了可有效降低投資人與公司治理層之資訊不對稱外，尚得使投資人或股東藉此資訊監督公司，並有效防止濫用公司制度。 本文提出目前公司法第22條之1的規定並無法達成其立法目的之問題，因本條文僅要求我國各公司揭露受益人至表層具控制權之對象（法人或自然人），而非如同各國際條約及英國、新加坡、美國…等國立法例，均須揭露至具最終實質受益權或最終控制權之「自然人」。本文列出各國比較法上對於申報實質受益人名簿相關之規定，從中分析具完善規範之國家須揭露之實質受益人對象與我國之不同，後整理出我國可參考之制度性作法。並於最後列出我國公司法第22條之1須修正之數點問題，透過案例闡釋若按照該條文建置實質受益人名簿，對於其目的，即建置跨國際的完善防制洗錢制度，並無助益之外，對於公司法該法本身之目的，即維持市場經濟秩序及增進公司治理等立法目的亦無幫助。另有鑒於2019年APG對我國之第三輪相互評鑑結果於此項目之成績仍不盡理想，以及上述之各種問題，本文結論為，基於希望達成立法目的、參照比較法、加強實務上法人申報及幫助洗錢案例追緝等因素，公司法第22條之1應可參照本文所建議之方向修改，以使我國確實與國際標準接軌，並建置完善之實質受益人名簿制度。

This article focuses on studying Article 22-1 of the Company Act of Taiwan (hereinafter “this Article”), and analyzes the problem of whether the legislative purpose of this Article, which is to build a fine and trans-international anti-money laundering system in Taiwan, can be attained if it is practically enforced. In 2018, a major amendment has been made to the Company Act of Taiwan. Although scholars, expertise, and people from private entities had been gathered to discuss in good faith about how the Act should be amended, there is no perfect law. The amendment and adding of new articles can also generate different impacts to economic environment and financial market. The legislative purpose of adding Article 22-1 to the Company Act is to build a complete trans-international anti-money laundering system through the mean of disclose all company’s beneficial ownership in our country. According to the legislative reasons, the functions of this Article, other than assisting Taiwan on passing the APG’s third round mutual evaluation in 2018, completing Taiwan’s anti-money laundering system, this Article shall also play a significant part in improving Taiwan’s corporate governance system by disclosing companies’ beneficial ownership information. The information of beneficial ownership can effectively eliminate the information asymmetry between investors and management levels of the company, also the investors can supervise the management levels from abusing corporate governance system with this information. This article raises the problem of how current Article 22-1 of the Company Act cannot attain its purpose. This Article requires only the disclosure of superficial beneficial owners of the companies (whether legal person or natural person). Comparing to several international treaties and other countries’ laws such as United Kingdom, Singapore, and United States, etc., they all requires the disclosure of the “natural person” who holds the ultimate significant control or ultimate benefit of the company. This article summarizes regulations of comparative laws regarding beneficial ownership registers system, analyses the differences between countries which have well-constructed beneficial ownership registers system and Taiwan, and sorts out few features which our country can reference from. This article lists several points how Article 22-1 of the Company Act can be amended, and explains through cases that its legislative purpose can never be attained if our country’s beneficial ownership registers system is constructed according to current laws. Also it will not help achieving the purpose of the Company Act itself, which is to maintain economic order of market and improve corporate governance. In conclusion, due to the unsatisfactory evaluation result regarding disclosing legal person’s beneficial ownership of APG’s third round mutual evaluation on Taiwan, and based on the expectation to attain the legislative purpose, Article 22-1 of the Company Act should be amended as this article recommends in order to build a fine beneficial ownership registers system and align with international standards.