論金融科技與法遵科技之挑戰與法制策略

隨著科技的發展，各個產業皆透過數位化尋求突破性的發展，且作為維持競爭力的方式。即使在作風傳統且保守的金融產業，也早已掀起科技的浪潮，即金融科技（Financial Technology，FinTech）。新興金融產品和服務推陳出新，金融監理也面臨巨大的挑戰。對監理機關而言，金融環境的動態變化，讓靜態的規範模式難以跟上市場的腳步。主管機關將面臨在支持金融創新與控制消費者的風險之間擺盪。對金融機構而言，囿於監理機關保守的作風以及層出不窮的管制規範，金融機構必須花費更多成本達成法令遵循的要求。為解決此問題，因而出現法遵科技（Regulatory Technology，RegTech）。本文以金融科技與法遵科技為研究對象，分析現行的應用情況與發展趨勢。從我國的案例出發，分析金融科技所面臨的監理挑戰—監理沙盒的落地機制、金融業個人資料保護、人工智慧的偏見與不透明性所引發的風險。再者，分析英國、美國金融監理架構、金融科技的發展現況，以及針對上述議題的規範模式。最後，參酌比較法對於上述議題的規範模式對我國現行法制提出建議，並分析法遵科技在各項議題中適用上的特殊之處。本論文對於我國金融科技相關規範的主要建議，包含（1）在金融監督管理委員會下增設「金融科技局」以支持金融科技創新的相關政策；（2）設計「差異化的落地機制」，不論是在既有監理沙盒的框架下，抑或是制定金融營業許可的分級化管理辦法。另本文認為，因為法遵科技是在協助金融業符合法令之要求，故在監管上相較於其他涉及消費者權利的金融科技，似可採取相對較低密度之監管；（3）在金融業的個人資料保護，參酌英國的規範，給予消費者更為全面的資料主體權利，而縱使在若干具有重大公益的情況，也應該有立法明文規範；（4）金融機構委託外部第三人開發金融科技時，雖主要透過內部控制的方式進行風險管理，惟監理機關應在涉及「重要性事項」加強規範力道；（5）在人工智慧的偏見與不透明性，本文認為在關鍵性、重要性決策時，金融機關應針對人工智慧所做出的決策進行再次查驗，透過人為把關確保消費者的權益。

關鍵字

金融科技；法遵科技；監理沙盒；隱私權；人工智慧；金融監理

並列摘要

With the development of technology, various industries are seeking breakthroughs through digitization in order to maintain competitiveness. Even in the traditional and conservative financial industries, a wave of technology has already been set off, namely Financial Technology (FinTech). Emerging financial products and services are constantly innovating, posing great challenges to financial regulation. For regulatory agencies, the dynamic changes in the financial environment make it difficult for static regulatory models to keep pace with the market. Regulatory authorities will face a dilemma between supporting financial innovation and controlling consumer risks. For financial institutions, complying with legal requirements can be costly due to the conservative nature of regulatory agencies and the extensive regulatory obligations they impose. Regulatory Technology (RegTech) has emerged to solve this problem. This article focuses on the research of FinTech and RegTech, analyzing the current applications and development trends. Starting with the case of our country, this analysis examines the regulatory challenges encountered by FinTech. These challenges include the implementation of regulatory sandboxes, the protection of personal data in the financial industry, and the risks associated with biases and opacity in artificial intelligence. Furthermore, this article analyzes the regulatory frameworks of financial supervision in the UK and the US, the current development of FinTech, and the regulatory models for the above issues. Finally, considering comparative law, this article proposes suggestions for the regulatory models of the above issues in our current legal system and analyzes the distinctive aspects of RegTech in different areas. This article provides recommendations for regulating FinTech in our country, which include: (1) establishing a "FinTech Bureau" under the Financial Supervisory Commission to support policies related to FinTech innovation; (2) designing a "differentiated management" within the existing regulatory sandbox framework or formulating a differentiated management approach for financial licenses. In addition, this article argues that because RegTech assists the financial industry comply with legal requirements, compared to other FinTech involving consumer rights, it does not directly interact with consumers and should be given more relaxed regulation. (3) When it comes to personal data protection in the financial industry, specifically in reference to regulations in the UK, consumers should be granted more extensive rights as data subjects. Even in cases where there may be significant public interest, there should be legislative regulations in place to limit the exercise of these rights.(4) When financial institutions commission external third parties to develop FinTech, risk management is primarily conducted through internal controls. However, regulatory authorities should enhance their regulatory efforts in addressing "important issues". (5) Regarding biases and opacity in artificial intelligence, this article argues that financial institutions should re-examine the decisions made by artificial intelligence in critical and important decision-making processes. This is necessary to ensure consumer rights through human checks.