論現行臺灣純網路銀行政策及法規妥適性

全球首家純網銀 Security First Network Bank(SFNB)成立於 1995 年美國; 歐洲地區首家純網銀 First-e 則於 1999 年誕生在英國，後適逢 2008 年金融海嘯造成多數人民對傳統銀行之不信任，順勢帶起歐洲純網銀風潮。亞洲則以日本起步最早，首間純網銀 Japan Net Bank 成立於 2000 年;中國於 2015 年由騰訊集團成立微眾銀行、由阿里巴巴集團成立網商銀行;南韓於 2017 年 4 月由南韓電信成立首家純網銀 K Bank;香港於 2020 年 3 月 24 日首間純網銀眾安銀行正式營運;新加坡則於 2020 年間核發執照，目前尚無純網銀正式營運。臺灣則於 2019 年 7 月 30 日核發三張純網銀執照，截至 2020 年 12 月已有 1 間純網銀業者取得營業執照並對外營業。由此可知，純網銀約緣起於 1995 年間之歐美地區，亞洲地區則自 2000 年興起，近期又因金融科技創新緣故再掀高潮，臺灣政府以開放純網銀設立可刺激金融市場、產生「鯰魚效應」並達到普惠金融等為政策目的，推動設立純網銀，惟規範上仍有法規過於嚴格、現實上落實困難等問題，導致純網銀可能新創不夠創新、保障不夠足夠、開放不夠完整，是否確實能成為鯰魚效應中之強者「鯰魚」? 於現行法規架構下，仍使人質疑其政策目的與開放純網銀間之關聯性及可行性。綜上，本文以為純網銀之興起固然能引進非金融業之新創企業、刺激金融市場等之優勢，惟在現行法制及監理上，無論係設立門檻或法規上仍有嚴格限制、操作上仍有現實的困難，而可能無法完全拓展新的領域。然因制度上之缺失而遏止純網銀之創新亦不值鼓勵，故本文以此為動機，探討發展純網銀之同時，現行之規範是否有助於達成政策目的，並討論如何設計更加合適之法規範制度，且在兼顧使用者資安、符合洗錢防制下鼓勵非金融業發展純網銀。

關鍵字

純網路銀行；虛擬銀行；普惠金融

並列摘要

The United States established the world's first internet-only bank, Security First Network Bank (SFNB), in 1995; Europe established the first internet-only bank, First-e, in the United Kingdom in 1999, which brought the European internet-only bank trend. Among Asian countries, Japan was the first to start, Japan Net Bank, was established in 2000; In China, Tencent Group established WeBank and Alibaba Group established MyBank in 2015; South Korea established the first internet-only bank, K Bank, in April 2017. Taiwan issued 3 licence of internet-only bank on July 2020, as of the end of the same year, Rakuten bank officially launched on January 19, 2021. It can be seen that the new form of internet-only bank originated in Europe and the United States in 1995, and the Asian region has risen since 2000. Recently, it has set off a new climax due to financial technology innovation. Taiwan has also caught up with this wave of enthusiasm. The government has also promoted the establishment of internet-only bank with the policy objective of opening up this kind of bank to stimulate the financial market, produce a "catfish effect" and achieve inclusive finance. However, there are still problems such as excessively strict regulations and difficult implementation in practice, resulting in internet-only bank. Internet-only bank may not be innovative enough, guarantee enough, or open enough. Under the current legal framework, people still question the relevance and feasibility between its policy objectives and the opening of internet-only bank. To sum up, this article believes that the rise of internet-only bank can certainly introduce the advantages of non-financial startups and stimulate the financial market, but in the current legal system and supervision, there are still strict restrictions and operations regardless of the establishment of thresholds or regulations. There are still practical difficulties in the field, and it may not be possible to fully expand into new areas. However, it is not worth encouraging to curb the innovation of internet-only bank due to the lack of system. Therefore, this article uses this as a motivation to discuss whether the current regulations can help achieve the policy objectives while developing internet-only bank, and discuss how to design more appropriate laws. Standardize the system, and encourage the non-financial industry to develop internet-only bank while taking into account user information security and complying with the anti-money laundering system.