管制性不利處分與職業自由之衝突—以金融機構負責人解職處分出發—

Abstract

金融機構之設立及營運涉及公眾利益，具有高度公共性，一直以來皆受到主管機關之高度監理。儘管如此，金融弊案仍層出不窮，諸如掏空公司資產、貪污收賄、員工監守自盜、內線交易等違法案件一再發生，而綜觀過往重大金融弊案，多因公司內控制度缺失及人員行為失當所引起。因此，公司及人員之監督管理成效可謂經營成敗之關鍵，而金融機構負責人做為公司之經營者，於公司文化之型塑及監督管理即扮演重要角色，尤其是董事長一職對外代表公司，對內為董事會主席，做為董事會的領導者，公司的最高管理者，更具有舉足輕重之代表性地位。 為健全金融機構經營並穩定金融秩序，保障投資人權益，金融主管機關於法規中訂有對金融機構負責人之資格條件及確定或不確定之監管事由條款，於負責人有資格不符或違反相關規定時，主管機關得以解除負責人職務。然不確定事由條款因限制要件定義未明確，全賴主管機關於事後依個案事實內容予以評價認定後裁量處分，且因解職手段除當下不得從事原職外，依規定並得向後限制於一定期間內不得回任金融業，對於人民之工作權益影響甚鉅。但因司法實務皆肯認此為管制性不利處分，不須適用行政罰法之規定，故於司法實務上常引發爭議。 解除職務因係限制負責人進入職業市場所應具備之事實要件，屬於職業自由之主觀條件限制，涉及到人民憲法工作權保障之審查。此種裁罰手段於法理上是否有欠缺明確性，手段是否有逾越正當性，而可能使主管機關於裁量上有行政恣意之空間，為本文所欲探討之方向。本文將透過近10年來金管會實際解除金融機構負責人之案例，限縮於董事長一職，歸類出為3個不同類型案例，各擇一件予以分析探討，並試著提出個人修法建議。

Due to the highly public nature, financial institutions have always been strictly supervised by the Financial Supervisory Commission. Nevertheless, financial malpractices such as hollowing out company assets, corruption and bribery, employee self-stealing, insider trading, etc. are still emerging one after another. Most of the past major financial malpractices were caused by the lack of the company's internal control and the misconduct of personnel. Therefore, the effectiveness of the supervision and management of the company and its personnel can be regarded as the key to the company’s success operation. The responsible persons, as the operators of the company, play an important role in shaping the company culture and supervising and managing the company, especially the chairman who represents the company externally and internally as the chairman of the board of directors. To be a leader of the board of directors and the top manager of the company, the chairman is the most representative position. In order to enhance the operation efficiency of financial institutions, stabilize the financial market order, and protect the rights and interests of investors, the financial regulatory authority enacts the qualifications requirements and the clauses of the regulatory matters that are specific clause or general clause for the responsible persons of financial institutions. When the responsible persons do not meet the qualifications or violate the regulations, the Financial Supervisory Commission may dismiss them. This article found that the definition of general clauses was not clear. When the incident happen, it entirely relies on the Financial Supervisory Commission to evaluate and make discretionary punishment based on the facts and content of the case. The means of dismissal, in addition to not being allowed to take up the original position at the moment, can be restricted to a certain period of time not being allowed to return to the financial industry in accordance with the regulations. However judicial practice all agree that dismissal is regulatory adverse action and not applicable to Administrative Penalty Act. Dismissal is a means that restricts the responsible persons from entering the job market, and is subjective limitation of occupational freedom, so it should be reviewed by Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan). If regulatory adverse action lacks legal clarity or exceeds the legitimacy, it may cause the Financial Supervisory Commission to have room for administrative arbitrariness in its discretion. This article discusses the chairman’s dismissal cases made by the Financial Supervisory Commission in the past 10 years, in an attempt to propose some to the feasible solution.