我國投資基金規範之檢討與建議

Abstract

我國投資基金類型共有證券投資信託基金、期貨信託基金、金融資產證券化、不動產投資信託以及不動產資產信託，而以上所有的基金類型均係由各個特別法分別規定之，且均有其獨特的定義，包括基金發行人、基金架構、投資標的以及投資組合等。然而，各種類型基金分別定義且定義明確的缺點為容易產生掛一漏萬之情形，尤其是在各特別法針對不同投資基金之主體、架構及標的均過於限縮時。在主體方面，我國基金相關法規就各基金之定義中納入發行人此一要素似將「基金監管」以及「發行人監管」混為一談。而依據各特別法之規範方式，由未經核准的發行人所發行者、未使用各特別法所定特定架構發行之投資基金憑證，在現行法律架構下可能自始即不構成有價證券，導致亦無法以《證交法》進行監管。最後，在投資標的方面，由於各特別法規範方式之不同，導致個案基金的投資標的如超出法規允許的投資標的時，部分情況係完全不受監管、但部分情形則完全禁止之法體系不協調情形。 觀察美國法及英國法之規範，美國法下的證券類型有著較我國更為多元及明確的定義，並且有投資契約此一寬泛定義的證券類型，各類型基金所發行的憑證因此至少均有對應的證券類型可被監管，至於特定的基金發行人則透過《投資公司法》規範；此外，美國法並未對基金內容進行過多的限制，而僅針對流通廣泛或向大眾募集者進行規範。另一方面，英國法下的基金則為一種獨立應被監管的投資行為，其並以集體投資計畫及另類投資基金兩套法規體系進行規範。對於集體投資計畫及另類投資基金，英國法雖有依架構、規模、投資人等分類，且各種類型的基金在投資標的方面亦有不同的限制，但英國法仍有針對未符合任何分類的基金的原則性規範，因此總體來說並不會構成類似我國有未被法律涵蓋的基金出現的情形。 本文建議，若欲解決我國現行投資基金規範的問題，除了應將發行人之監管從基金定義及發行層面的規範中抽離之外，亦可考慮訂立概括類型的投資基金，以將現行所有基金的特別法整合並放寬其定義，以涵蓋所有類型的基金，使資本市場的籌資更為自由及靈活，並針對其中風險較大或是對於投資人保護需求較大者進行嚴格監管即可。

In Taiwan, the types of investment funds include securities investment trust funds, futures trust funds, financial asset securitization, real estate investment trusts (REITs), and real estate asset trusts. These fund types are each regulated under their respective special laws, which uniquely define their key aspects, such as fund issuers, structures, investment targets, and investment portfolios. However, the distinct and separate definitions for each type of funds in Taiwan result in regulatory gaps, particularly when the special laws impose overly restrictive limitations on the issuers, structures, and portfolios associated with different types of funds. Regarding the issuers, Taiwan's fund-related regulations somehow define funds by whether they are issued by specific licensees, potentially conflating "fund regulation" with "issuer regulation." Therefore, under the current framework, certificates issued by unlicensed issuers or funds that do not adopt the specific structures prescribed under the special laws are neither classified as securities nor subject to regulation under the Securities and Exchange Act. In terms of investment portfolios, inconsistencies arise due to differences in how the special laws regulate permitted investment portfolios. Therefore, certain types of funds may face no restrictions, while others are entirely prohibited from investing in portfolios outside the scope of the regulations, leading to systemic regulatory dissonance. In contrast, U.S. laws define a broader and more diverse range of securities, including the flexible "investment contract" category, enabling corresponding regulation of certificates issued by various types of funds. Specific fund issuers are further governed by the Investment Company Act of 1940. Additionally, U.S. laws do not impose extensive restrictions on fund content, but only focusing on funds that are widely circulated or publicly raised. In contrast, Under U.K. laws, funds are recognized as independent and regulated investment activities governed by two legal frameworks: collective investment schemes and alternative investment funds. U.K. laws apply different restrictions on investment portfolios for each fund type, based on structure, scale, and investor profile. Despite these categorizations, the U.K. also provides regulations for funds that do not fall into any specific category, preventing regulatory gaps similar to those in Taiwan. To address Taiwan's current challenges, this thesis proposes that Taiwan should separate issuer regulation from fund’s definition and issuance, as well as establishing a generalized category of investment funds consolidating all current special fund laws and broadening their definitions to cover all types of funds. This would facilitate greater freedom and flexibility in capital raising within Taiwan's market, with stricter regulations reserved for funds with higher risks or those requiring enhanced investor protection.