受詐騙之金融消費者保護與金融業者之責任-以銀行業為例

Abstract

本論文以《受詐騙之金融消費者保護與金融業者之責任-以銀行業為例》為題，探討在金融詐騙事件日益嚴峻的現代社會，金融消費者所面臨之法律風險與保護困境，並檢討金融業者於防詐作為與損害補償上所應承擔的法律責任。本文以臺灣《金融消費者保護法》為核心，輔以《銀行法》、《詐欺犯罪危害防制條例》等相關法規，分析現行制度對資訊揭露、適合度評估與損害填補的規範效果，並指出舉證責任分配與評議機制強制力不足為當前實務之主要缺陷。 理論上，本文主張金融交易具「準信託關係」，銀行應負高度注意義務，且在特定條件下應導入「限定型無過失責任」原則，如銀行未啟動風控、未通報疑似詐騙交易或違反業界準則者，即使無主觀過失亦應負損害賠償責任。透過比較英國附帶補償模式（CRM Code）、日本匯款詐欺救濟法、歐盟第二版支付服務指令（PSD2）等國際經驗，本文提出公平合理、可得預防與制度誘因三大責任分配原則，作為我國制度改革之基礎。 結論建議包括：一、建構責任均衡與制度信賴的法制模式；二、金融詐騙責任分配的核心原則；三、最終反思：金融服務的信賴關係與社會責任。 本研究強調，防制詐騙不應止於刑事偵查與行政管理，更須從民事法律責任與制度正當性角度切入，強化金融消費者在數位金融時代的實質保障。

This thesis, entitled "The Protection of Defrauded Financial Consumers and the Legal Responsibility of Financial Institutions — A Case Study on the Banking Sector", explores the legal risks and protection challenges faced by financial consumers in an era of increasingly serious financial fraud, and critically examines the legal responsibilities financial institutions, particularly banks, should bear in fraud prevention and loss compensation. Anchored in Taiwan’s Financial Consumer Protection Act, and supplemented by related regulations such as the Banking Act and the Fraud Crime Prevention Act, this study analyzes the regulatory effectiveness of existing frameworks with respect to information disclosure, suitability assessments, and damage redress mechanisms. It also highlights current deficiencies in the allocation of the burden of proof and the lack of binding force in dispute resolution procedures. From a theoretical perspective, the thesis argues that financial transactions should be understood as involving a quasi-fiduciary relationship, thereby imposing a heightened duty of care upon banks. Under specific conditions, a “limited strict liability” principle should be adopted—whereby banks, even absent subjective fault, would bear liability for damages if they fail to activate risk control procedures, neglect to report suspected fraudulent transactions, or breach industry standards. Drawing on international experiences including the UK’s Contingent Reimbursement Model （CRM） Code, Japan’s Remittance Fraud Relief Act, and the EU’s Revised Payment Services Directive （PSD2）, the thesis proposes three guiding principles for allocating liability: fairness and reasonableness, foreseeability of prevention, and institutional incentive structures, offering a foundation for Taiwan’s regulatory reform. The study concludes with three key recommendations: first, the construction of a legal framework that balances liability and institutional trust; second, the articulation of core principles for assigning liability in financial fraud cases; and third, a broader reflection on the fiduciary nature of financial services and the accompanying social responsibilities. Ultimately, this research underscores that anti-fraud measures must not be limited to criminal investigation and administrative enforcement, but must also encompass civil liability and institutional legitimacy, in order to strengthen the substantive protection of financial consumers in the digital financial era.