金融消費爭議處理機制之研究—以機構運作為中心

金融商品蓬勃發展，發展出多樣化的金融商品，同時也帶來更高的風險。2008年發生金融海嘯，各國努力改革金融監理，包括世界主要國，英國、美國，甚至在金融保護方面較為落後的中國大陸，都開始意識到，為使金融體系穩定，除了對於金融體制的監理與制管制，更重要的是要保護金融消費者的權益，才能讓整個金融環境穩定。而要真正落實保護金融消費者之權益，必須有良好的金融消費者保護法制之外，還要有一套能幫助金融消費者在金融糾紛產生時，能夠迅速有效保障其權益的金融消費爭議處理制度。而本文主要探討和金融消費者保護有關的兩大層面，一為金融消費者保護法制，另一則為爭議處理機構之運作。在金融消費者保護法制方面，探討金融環境較為成熟的英美兩國，分析其金融監理發展以及與金融消費者保護之相關規定，還有同為亞洲國家的中國，雖然起步較慢，但因為近年也開始重視金融消費者保護，快速的改革與發展，可能也會有相關制度是我國可以比較學習的地方。而在爭議處理機構運作方面，金保法第1條就開宗明義指出，本法之目的為公平、合理、且有效的解決金融消費爭議，提升金融消費者對市場之信心，因此，為能使金融消費爭議的處理更為順暢，將探討我國於2011年設置的爭議處理機構，「財團法人金融消費評議中心」在處理爭議可能面對之問題，並探討評議中心草創時參考之英國公評人制度，觀察比較與機構運作有關的規定，以及實務上面對的爭議問題的可能處理方法，是否有我國能學習的地方，以精進在金融消費者保護上的規定，期待能夠在金融消費爭議處理制度上，更迅速有效公正的解決，確實保障金融消費者之權益，讓金融環境能夠有更穩定的發展。

關鍵字

金融消費者保護法；金融監理制度；金融消費評議中心；英國金融公評服務機構；新加坡金融業調解中心

並列摘要

With the vigorous development of financial derivatives, which also brings higher risks. After the financial crisis in 2008, all countries made efforts to reform financial supervision, including the world’s major countries, the United Kingdom, the United States. And even China, which is relatively backward in financial protection, began to realize that in order to stabilize the financial system, it is more important to protect the rights and interests of financial consumers in order to stabilize the whole financial system. To truly protect the rights and interests of financial consumers, there must not only have a good financial consumer protection legal system, but also have a set of financial consumer dispute settlement system that can help financial consumers quickly and effectively protect their rights and interests when financial disputes arise. The purpose of this paper is about two aspects related to financial consumer protection, one is the legal system of financial consumer protection, and the other is the operation of dispute settlement institutions. To investigate the legal system of financial consumer protection, it discusses the system in the United Kingdom and the United States, which have relatively mature financial environment, and analyzes financial supervision development and relevant provisions on financial consumer protection. Besides, it also discusses financial consumer protection of China, which has begun to attach importance to financial consumer protection with rapid reform and development in recent years. In terms of the operation of dispute settlement institutions, Article 1 of the Financial Consumer Protection Act points out at the beginning that the purpose of this Act is to fairly, reasonably and effectively solve financial consumption disputes and enhance confidence of financial consumers in the financial market. Therefore, in order to make the handling of financial consumption disputes more effective, it discusses the dispute settlement institutions set up in Taiwan in 2011, the “Financial Ombudsman Institution”, may face problems in dealing with disputes. And it explores, observes and compares the provisions of the “Financial Ombudsman Service” in United Kingdom, finding whether there is anything that Taiwan can learn to improve the provisions on financial consumer protection. Looking forward to a more rapid, effective and fair settlement of financial consumption disputes, so as to truly protect the rights and interest of financial consumers and enable a more stable development of the financial environment.