| 中文摘要 |
銀行進行集體投資活動時,應如何在商業與投資銀行業務間畫出界限?即便在新金融現代化的時代中,銀行共同基金活動的功能管制,仍是一個值得探討的問題。本文嘗試說明1960年代以來,美國銀行集體投資活動發展的相關法律議題,並且藉由兩個案例-ICI v. Camp與ICI v. Conover檢驗銀行與投資公司機構間的爭鬥。本文更進一步探討功能管制的觀點,同時也討論1999年美國金融服務法及美國證券交易委員會在2004年6月所提出B管制方式中的相關條文。本文發現,法院傾向在特定銀行集體投資基金的本質基礎上劃定法律界限,並且發展出三個步驟來論證及決定系爭案件資金的合法性。首先,法院調查系爭銀行集體投資基金的特徵。其次,法院檢驗在1933年美國金融機構管制法下,這些基金是否構成了「安全」的意涵,以至於主銀行被禁止進行相關的運作。第三,法院則審查行政命令的合理性。倘若法院無法清楚理解立法目的。在決定銀行集體投資基金的合法性時,法院須依據美國金融機構管制法來判斷相關的因素,如銀行作為信託者或是代理者的資格種類、風險程度,基金可能被濫用的情況。本文旨在強調集體投資工具的重要性,當法院在決定銀行集體投資基金合法性時。銀行向公衆行銷與推銷保險的活動,引發投資者保護的考量。本文認為合理的界線應該在於投資者是否能適當理解銀行所推出的基金以及銀行基金避險的相關措施。此外,基金的結構影響銀行和顧客間的關係,在思考相關管制時,應該從投資者保護與信託關係本質的觀點,來劃定商業與投資銀行間的法律界限。 |
| 英文摘要 |
Where the legal boundary should be drawn between commercial and investment banking with respect to the bank collective investment activities? This is an ultimate question one may desire to ask even under the functional regulation of bank mutual fund activities in the new financial modernization era.This article attempts to illustrate the legal issues involved during the course of development of bank collective investment activities in the U.S since 1960, and examines the battle between the banks and the Investment Company Institute (ICI) by reviewing two cases, i.e. ICI v. Camp and ICI v. Conover. This article will further explore the meaning of functional regulation in general and identify relevant provisions in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the SEC proposed Regulation B released in June 2004.This article found that the Court tended to draw the legal boundary based on the nature of specific bank collective investment funds and proceeded three steps of reasoning to determine the legality of the funds at issue. First, the court would survey the characteristics of the bank collective investment fund at issue. Second, the court would examine if such fund constituted the meaning of security" under Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 so that the sponsoring bank was prohibited from operation. Third, the court looked into the reasonableness of the administrative rulings if a clear congressional intent could not be found. In determining the legality of bank collective investment funds, the relevant factors includes the type of capacity that the bank acts as a trustee or an agent and the level of risks or the potential abuses that the fund bears in light of the Glass-Steagall Act .This article tries to stress the importance of the nature of collective investment vehicles in determining the legality of bank collective investment funds. It is the bank's activities of underwriting and marketing to the public that raises our concern of investor protection. The rationale lies on how the customers perceive the fund sponsored by the bank, and whether the customers may confuse that the fund is insured by the bank to be free from risks. Moreover, the structure of the fund as a separate entity is another important concern that may have impact on the relationship between the bank and its clients. It is the bank not the separate entity that the customers entrust the assets. Therefore, in addition to the legal capacity, the legal boundary between commercial and investment banking should be drawn from the perspective of investor protection and the nature of trust relationship. |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
