金融消費爭議處理機制-處理程序之比較研究

現代金融商品漸趨專業化、複雜化，金融消費者處於相對弱勢，2008年金融海嘯爆發，在台灣造成許多金融消費爭議，保護金融消費者權益為人所重視。金融消費者保護法於100年6月29日制定公布，並由行政院核定自100年12月30日施行。該法係參考英國金融公評人機構、新加坡金融爭議調解中心及國內相關體例擬定。財團法人金融消費評議中心依金融消費者保護法於101年1月2日揭牌運作，以公平、合理、有效處理金融消費爭議，迄今已逾10年。英國金融公評人機構，其制度設計上，針對弱勢之金融消費者提供充分的救濟，欲建立金融「訴訟外紛爭解決機制」，國內外國家或機關單位均以英國金融公評人機構為基礎典型範本；新加坡與台灣同為華人社會，其金融爭議調解中心，以客戶為中心導向之服務，並簡化金融部門爭議解決流程，2021年公布的國際仲裁調查報告，新加坡首次與英國倫敦並列為最受歡迎的仲裁地，有值得我國借鏡之處。最後，藉由比較金融消費爭議處理機制之處理程序，標明差異性，以檢視我國目前爭議處理流程的缺失，並就英國及新加坡金融消費爭議處理流程均有而台灣付之闕如之規範項目，作為結論及建議之方向。

關鍵字

金融消費爭議處理機制；金融消費者保護法；英國金融公評人機構；新加坡金融爭議調解中心

並列摘要

Consumers now are staying at a risky financial position due to the professionalization and complexity of modern financial products. The outbreak of financial crisis in 2008 brought various financial consumption disputes in Taiwan, making the protections of rights and interests of consumer important. Financial Consumer Protection Act was issued on 29th June 2011 and implemented from 30th December 2011. This act was consulted relevant regulations from Financial Ombudsman Service in UK and Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre Ltd in Singapore. Following by the clauses of Financial Consumption Protection Act, Financial Ombudsman Institution was opening on second January 2012, and was effectively coping with financial consumption controversies with justice and rationality for over a decade. The design of Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK is focusing on the full relieves to vulnerable financial consumers, attempting to build a mechanism of solution outside litigation. Many countries and local authorities built their own financial ombudsman service by referring to the UK. Comprising the Chinese communities such as Taiwan, Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre Ltd in Singapore is a consumer-oriented service, aiming at simplifying the solution process of disputes in financial sections. The report of International Arbitration Survey in 2021, Singapore initially is juxtaposed with London to be the most popular places of arbitration. There is something worthy of us to reference. At last, the conclusions and recommendation are made from comparing the process of the mechanism and the differences of marking in dispute solution in financial consumption to scrutinize the missing of dispute solution process in Taiwan, and collating the regulation items among UK, Singapore, and Taiwan.