從金融消費爭議實例探討消費者保護與金融監督管理

Cases Study from the Financial Consuming Disputes—Financial Supervision and Management and Consumer Protection

高榮彬(Lung-Bin Gau)

指導教授 ： 鄒建中 ； 金鐵英

朝陽科技大學/管理學院/財務金融系/碩士(2010年)

摘要

隨著經濟發展愈加蓬勃發達，金融商品及衍生性金融商品日益創新、愈來愈複雜。政府為因應金控法的實施及金融商品複雜性、資訊的不透明性和金融企業與消費者間之不對稱性等問題，制定了諸多金融法規及公平交易法、消費者保護法等規範，並大力宣導消費者保護政策，可謂已有前瞻性作為。然而立法從嚴、執法從寬的結果，導致金融監督管理無法落實，消費者保護淪為口號。
本篇論文首先以三個金融消費爭議實例，消費者依照現行的消費者保護機制，向金融企業申訴，向縣市政府消保官聲請消費爭議調解，向媒體、消基會、公平交易委員會、金融監管理委員會等申訴、陳情循求幫助，均未見成效，最後採取訴願、民刑事訴訟的實際司法過程；探究出消費者保護機制對於金融爭議案件，只有存在著流於形式的組織架構，並未發揮實際效能。
雖然我國並未對金融服務之消費者保護特別立法。但是，本文三個金融消費爭議案例之消費者保護問題經由法律、規章的觀點剖析；現有之民法、刑法、消費者保護法、公平交易法及金融相關法令規章及組織架構，已屬完備。至於，金融消費爭議的消費者保護之所以成效不彰，並非法令規章不完備，我們檢視出「人的因素」才是問題的關鍵。。
本文已將三個金融消費爭議實例的申訴、調解、司法過程，所使用的書面資料和所涉及之相關法條予以彙整，提供消費者日後面對金融消費爭議時之參考。最後，建議消費者應建立從金融交易前勤做功課，到為解決問題不惜訴訟的決心，方將確保應有權益。公務員須心靈昇華革除官僚作風，要有身為公樸，服務民眾、回饋國家的信念。金管會應統一事權，設立受理金融消費爭議申訴的單一窗口，加強追蹤考核，如此必能減少消費者與金融企業間之訟累，提昇政府施政效能。

關鍵字

消費者保護 ； 金融消費爭議 ； 金融監理

並列摘要

With the booming economic development, financial products and derivatives increased innovation, and become more and more complex. Government response to the implementation of Financial Holding Company Act and the complexity of financial products, information opacity and the asymmetry between consumers and financial enterprises, has developed a number of financial regulation and fair trade, consumer protection laws and other norms, and efforts on promoting consumer protection policies, which is quite proactive. However, with strict legislation and law enforcement leniency, financial supervision and management cannot be implemented practically, consumer protection is no more than a slogan.
This paper first instance three financial consumer disputes, the consumer adopts the existing consumer protection mechanisms to complain with the financial enterprise, to complain with consumer protection officer of the county and city government, claiming for consumer dispute mediation, to the media, the Consumers Foundation, the Fair Trade Commission, Financial Supervisory Commission seeking help, to no avail, and finally to petition, The judicial process of self-reliant petition for Civil & Criminal Suit Law, found out that the consumer protection mechanisms in case of financial dispute, only a mere formality in the organizational structure , did not play the actual performance.
There are no particular laws on the consumer protection of financial services in our country now. However, this controversial case of financial consumption, analyzing by the viewpoints of legislation, the existing civil law, criminal law, consumer protection laws, fair trade and finance-related laws and regulations and organizational structure are already complete. As for the reason why consumer protection of financial consumer disputes is ineffective, it’s not because of the deficiency of laws and regulations. It is found that the key problem is brought about by human factors.
This paper has united the use of written information and the related ordinance involved in the mediation and judicail process of these three instances of financial consumer complaints, providing consumers with consumer disputes face of future financial reference. Last but not least, proposed consumer that financial transactions should be established on the ground to do their homework beforehand. To resolve their problem, consumers should not fear to litigation. In this case, they will ensure their own rights. Public servants are supposed to get rid of bureaucratic mind, to have convictions of serving the public, feedback our country. FSC should be unifying, working on the establishment of units for complaints received financial consumer disputes, to strengthen follow-up checks. In this way, it will be able to reduce the bothering litigation between consumers and financial firms and to improve the government performance

並列關鍵字

Financial Consumer Disputes ； Financial Supervision ； Consumer Protection

參考文獻

8.孫冀薇（2006）。從「興利防弊」之觀點論金融監理制度之設計。碩士論文，國立台灣大學商管學院財務金融研究所，台北。

31.銀行辦理衍生性金融商品業務應注意事項

35.公平交易法對金融業經營行為之規範說明

30.銀行辦理財富管理業務應注意事項

1.行政院金融監督管理委員會（2008，0213）金保三字第09702541072號裁處書。