比特幣法律定性與法規範研究

Abstract

比特幣法律定性之學理見解尚未一致，司法實務無可參酌，為保障當事人權利，或須對比特幣作出性質不相同之解釋，以確保判決結果合理。隨個案數量增加，不同個案間之歧異將逐漸擴大，除審理上徒增困擾，更不利其他案件當事人尋求統一見解以預為攻擊防禦之準備，故明確定性自有其需求。 本文整理國內學者與實務觀點，除以構成要件研究各說尚待解決之難題，並另引入經濟學觀點，以比特幣使用方法與交易之現況，尋求相類事物加以比較，以定性結果對比應具備之構成要件，指出比特幣乃係不完備之第三人發行補充貨幣，進一步區別應屬商品（服務）禮券，即指示證券之一種。本文後段指出比特幣法律規範之不足，對比德國補充貨幣規範及歐盟監管規定，就比特幣及相似之傳統加密貨幣，提出加密貨幣市場證券化下尚待補足之法規範缺漏，並以消費者保護問題為例，以本文定性結果討論個案適用方向，期供實務與立法作為參考。

The nature of Bitcoin is unclear in law and relative cases is increasing. In order to protect the rights of the parties, the court may have to interpret the same thing with incompatible natures in specific cases. Correspondingly, it might harm the principle of clarity or definiteness of law and it is significantly detriment for defense. This research focuses on existed diverse definitions in Taiwan, and further discusses the core issues on the basis of main elements in each theories. Simultaneously, this research introduces economic perspectives, quest goods which discovered resembling manners of use compare to Bitcoin to ascertain relative essentials which can clear the nature of Bitcoin in law. The author points that Bitcoin should be a kind of complement currency issued by the third party who doesn't owns goods or services. Which means it’s a voucher and the security payable by an assigned person. The last chapter makes a comparative study focusing on German Law and European Union's supervision to analyzes the law in Taiwan. Primarily about cryptocurrency securitization and apply the resolution pointed in this article on actual cases.