從組織層面分析財團法人金融消費評議中心之見解—以連動式債券案件中適合度原則與說明義務的適用為中心

2008年9月15日雷曼兄弟控股公司宣布破產，引爆自1929年經濟大蕭條以來最嚴重的世界經濟危機，此危機引發的金融海嘯亦在我國引起嚴重的影響，各國因此檢討金融監理與秩序規範。我國也於2011年制定並通過《金融消費者保護法》，以強化臺灣金融商品交易的監理與金融消費者保護。該法第9條及第10條分別為「適合度原則」與「說明義務」的規範，此二要求為金融商品銷售法律規範二大基本原則。此外，行政院金融監督管理委員會則依據該法設置獨立、專業的金融消費爭議處理機構，為「財團法人金融消費評議中心」。而本文發現，同樣為針對「連動式債券」之案件，評議中心與法院針對適合度原則與說明義務之解釋、操作，以及金融消費者得請求賠付金額比例均略有不同。本文欲深入探討評議中心與法院判決差異的原因。首先本文將說明公共政策形成之步驟，認為評議中心的設立雖是以「迅速處理金融消費爭議，以保護金融消費者權益」為目的，於政策形成過程中，可能考量了其他利害關係人之利益；接續就就評議中心的組織特性，說明其可能面臨的行政課責、政治課責。就前者而言，金管會對評議中心具有人事、財務、重要事項的核可權，此外，部分官員兼任評議中心董監事，預算來源大部分來自於金管會、績效評鑑等，均可說明評議中心受到金管會之監督；就後者而言，本文舉連動式債券與人民幣TRF案件為例說明政治課責的運作。於此二案件中，民眾向立委陳情，立委再於財政委員會針對金管會為質詢，要求金管會做出回應，而評議中心又受金管會之監督，故亦可能對評議中心的運作造成影響；最後再與法院做比較，蓋法院並未如評議中心面臨行政課責與政治課責，或可能為二者見解不同之原因。本文認為，上開針對連動式債券之案件，法院與評議中心針對適合度原則與說明義務的解釋、操作，以及金融消費者得請求賠付金額的比例之不同並沒有孰是孰非之問題，而係法院、評議中心此二機構之組織特徵不盡相同。故本文認為可依照目前之現狀繼續發展，不需要因為此二者見解不同，而特別調整任一機構之見解。

關鍵字

《金融消費者保護法》；適合度原則；說明義務；財團法人金融消費評議中心；政府捐助的財團法人；政治課責；行政課責

並列摘要

As a result of the bankrupt of the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the most serious world economic crises happened since the Great Depression in 1929. This crisis also led to tremendous impact in Taiwan. Therefore, countries reviewed financial supervision and norms, we also enacted “Financial Consumer Protection Act” in 2011 in order to strengthen the supervision of financial commodity transactions and the protection of financial consumers in Taiwan. Articles 9 and 10 stipulate the requirements of financial service industries on the “Suitability” and the “Disclosure Requirement” , which are the two basic principles of the legal regulations on the sale of financial products. In addition, the Financial Supervisory Commission R.O.C established an independent professional financial dispute resolution institution basing on the Act. This article finds that the interpretation of the “Suitability” and “Disclosure Requirement” are different between the court and the Financial Ombudsman Institution. First of all, although the goal of the Financial Ombudsman Institution is “handling financial consumer disputes to protect financial consumers’ rights”, it’s believed that the interests of other policy stakeholders are considered through the steps of public policy formation. Secondly, describing administrative accountability and political accountability of the Financial Ombudsman Institution. As for the former, the FSC had the right to approve personnel, finances, and important matters. Besides, it’s obvious that the Financial Ombudsman Institution is supervised by the FSC through the budget source and the performance assessment. As for the later, taking the case of Structured Notes and TRF for example, the legislators requested the FSC respond to the financial consumers’ needs, and the FSC had a certain influence on the Financial Ombudsman Institution which might affect its operation. Last but not least, comparing with the court, the later did not face administrative accountability and political accountability, which might be the reason for the different opinions of the two. In conclusion, this thesis believes that the difference between the interpretation of “Suitability” and “Disclosure Requirement” and the difference in the proportion of the amount of compensation in ombudsman statement and judicial judgement are not because of which is right and wrong, but because of the different characteristics of the two organizations. As a result, this thesis believes that it can continue to develop according to the current status quo, and there is no need to adjust the opinions of any institution because of the different opinions of the two.

並列關鍵字

Financial Consumer Protection Act ； Suitability ； Disclosure Requirement ； Financial Ombudsman Institution ； Government-Funded Nonprofit Organizations ； Administrative Accountability ； Political Accountability