首次代幣發行(ICOs)監管及美國執法之趨勢

Abstract

由於區塊鏈所提供之募資管道，成本較低且較具效率，ICO市場自2017年以來有爆發性成長，截至2018年6月全球募資金額已達190億美元，遠超過2017年的38.8 億美元，顯見ICO 募資已蔚為風潮，成為資本市場不容忽視之籌資與投資管道。2017年7月美國SEC發表了首份ICO項目調查報告，將DAO代幣界定為證券類別之投資契約 。2018年6月初美國SEC主席 Jay Clayton重申SEC的立場，比特幣不是證券，但大多數ICO代幣是證券，應該受到監管。然早於 2015年CFTC則主張虛擬貨幣係商品，涉及虛擬貨幣之詐騙案亦受其管轄。2018年3月6日美國紐約地方法院裁定CFTC對虛擬貨幣詐欺案具管轄權，並認為SEC、IRS、FinCen、DOJ、州層級金融主管機關、…….等，於其主管法律範圍下具有管轄權，並提及虛擬貨幣法律監管重疊之問題，在美國國會澄清此事之前，法院認為CFTC與其他州和聯邦行政機關，以及民事和刑事法院，同時有權處理虛擬貨幣相關議題，並指出虛擬貨幣雖得作為支付工具，但未被認可為法定貨幣。 自2017年以來，美國出現了大量與虛擬貨幣相關的監管指導，執法行動和集體訴訟案件。本文對美國政府機關有關ICO從不妨礙科技發展到全面執法之監管政策，作利、弊分析。此外，除2017年美國監管機關之執法行動 (未經註冊、詐欺) ，民事訴訟是近期值得注意的發展趨勢，與虛擬貨幣相關的民事訴訟主要是證券集體訴訟，涉及價格操縱、內線股價下跌等爭議，然而，數位貨幣的獨特特性（如智慧合約）引發了不同的問題，則尚待解決。本文試圖經由美國近期ICO及虛擬貨幣之執法及訴訟案件，了解ICO及虛擬貨幣之特性、法規框架、監管趨勢以及法律爭議，此外，並從政府機關監管介入程度，比較世界主要國家對ICO及虛擬貨幣之監管方式，分析其優、缺點，希冀對我國未來ICO及虛擬貨幣之立法政策及監管重點，提出可行之建議，並有助於ICO相關事業之生態發展。然而在區塊鏈及ICO社群所倡導「去中心化｣之理念下，尚存內部治理……等議題，如何再顯「新中心｣或「多中心｣之價植，則有待日後持續研議。

The ICO market has grown rapidly. As of June 2018, the global fundraising amount has reached 19 billion US dollars, far exceeding the 3.88 billion US dollars in 2017. It is obvious that ICO fundraising has become a trend. It is also a conduit for financing and investment that cannot be ignored in the capital market. In July 2017, the US SEC published the first ICO Project Survey Report (The DAO Report), which defines the DAO token as an investment contract for the securities category. In early June 2018, US SEC Chairman Jay Clayton reiterated the SEC's position that Bitcoin not a Security, but most ICOs are securities and should be regulated. In 2015, the CFTC advocated virtual currency is a commodity, in cases of virtual currency fraud, subject to its jurisdiction. On March 6, 2018, the US District Court in New York ruled that the CFTC had jurisdiction over virtual currency fraud and considered that the SEC, IRS, FinCen, DOJ, state financial authorities, etc. Under the scope of their competent law and regulations, they have jurisdiction over cases involving illegal. And mentioning the overlapping of regulatory and legal system of virtual currency, before the Congress clarified the matter, the court held that the CFTC had the right to deal with virtual currency-related issues with other state and federal administrative agencies as well as civil and criminal courts. The court also pointed out that virtual currency could be paid as a payment instrument, but not recognized as legal tender. 2017 saw an avalanche of regulatory guidance, enforcement actions, and class action filings related to virtual currency. This article also analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the US regulatory policy regarding ICO from inactivities to a full enforcement. In addition to the enforcement actions of US regulatory authorities in 2017 (unregistered, fraudulent), civil litigation is a recent noteworthy development trend. The civil litigation related to virtual currency is mainly a securities class action, involving disputes such as price manipulation and stock price decline. However, the unique features of virtual currency and related digital assets like smart contracts create additional distinct questions that will need to be answered in many matters. This article attempts to understand the features, regulatory framework and legal issues of ICO and virtual currency through the recent enforcement and litigation cases. In addition, from the government agencies to supervise the degree of intervention, compare the main countries' regulatory approaches of virtual currency and ICO, and analyze their advantages and disadvantages. Hope that this article may provide feasible suggestions for ICO policy and regulatory and contribute to ICO ecological development. Under the concept of 'decentralization' advocated by the blockchain and the ICO community, there are still issues such as internal governance and other issues. How to re-display the value of 'new center' or 'multi-center' will be studied in the future.