新興金融科技遭濫用於犯罪之研究

Research on the Criminality of Fintech Abuse

"一、新興金融科技加速支付服務之發展，促使人類的消費或投資經常利用各式電子支付工具進行連線或離線的資金移轉。此外虛擬通貨更因有區塊鏈或密碼學技術的加持，使人類可有價值儲存及交換的新選項，促使許多國家貨幣監理或發行機構，非但對於虛擬通貨進行監理，進而本身也規劃中央銀行數位貨幣（Central Bank Digital Currency, CBDC），可知新興科技對於現代化支付面的影響既深又廣且快。二、電子支付工具──包括電子支付與第三方支付──作為一新型態的支付工具，存在五大特性──匿名、快速、追蹤困難、非面對面、跨境，使其易於成為犯罪者使用的犯罪工具。國內亦已屢見電子支付工具用於犯罪的案例發生，本研究團隊透過類型化分析，發現電子支付工具經常涉及的案件類型包括詐欺、賭博、竊取被害人之資訊綁定支付帳號供自己消費、盜用被害人資訊設立帳戶等案件，整體而言電子支付工具已逐漸成為犯罪常用的工具。三、虛擬通貨本身的價格波動大，投資風險較高，再加上近年來以區塊鏈、虛擬資產為名目的吸金詐騙案件屢見不鮮。現行法令除了「具證券性質的虛擬通貨」因屬有價證券而受證券交易法規範，以及洗錢防制法規範外，對於虛擬通貨交易並無其他明文規範，金融監督管理委員會遂以新聞稿方式提醒大眾投資虛擬通貨之風險。本研究團隊透過法院案例分析出虛擬通貨之六大犯罪類型：交易標的型、交付個人資料型、交付虛擬通貨帳戶型、支付工具型、不法所得洗錢型與挖礦竊電型，且發現案件數量持續成長中。四、近期相關法令之修正，已確認第三方支付業者與虛擬通貨業者的洗錢防制義務，但相關主管機關欲監督業者確實落實其義務，仍有一定挑戰。本研究建議犯罪偵查機關與主管機關建立聯繫，將偵查時發現的洗錢防制義務落實不力的業者通報主管機關，作為主管機關加強檢查與執法的優先對象，以落實風險基礎方法之監理；此外我國犯罪偵查機關可進一步建立金融科技犯罪資料庫，彙整相關偵查資料並針對金融科技用於犯罪的情形進行分析，透過科技方法協助自身在有限的監理資源下，盡可能全面且即時地對龐大的複雜系統施以監管，並鎖定應重點加強執法的金融科技業者。最後，為期降低利用金融科技工具犯罪之可能，本研究建議新增偽造變造數位支付工具之刑法規定，以補足新興金融科技工具因欠缺實體而不適用刑法第201條之1偽造變造卡式支付工具而遺留的立法不足，強化數位支付工具的真實性。"

"FinTech (Financial Technology) has speeded up the development of payment servicesand promoted the consumption and investment using electronic payment instruments to transfer funds online/offline. In addition, backed by the blockchain and cyptography technologies, cryptocurrency provides the public a new option to store and exchange value, prompting many countries’to rethink not only their currency policies and supervision but also the plan to issue digital currency (Central Bank Digital Currency,“CBDC”) instead. These developments have deep impacts on modern ways of payment, and the impact is wider and faster.Electronic payment instruments, including electronic payments and third-party payments, have five general characteristics, namely, anonymity, speed, difficult tracking, non- face-to-face, and cross-border, which provide a new criminal instrument for crimes. Many criminal cases in Taiwan have employed electronic payment instruments. Through a comprehensive empirical analysis and typology, we found that criminals often use electronic payment instruments to commit fraud, gambling, theft of electronic payment account for consumption, theft of personal information to create fraudulent payment account, and others. The case number and monetary amount of the above criminal cases are also considerable, showing that the current electronic payment instrument businesses contain a considerable degree of loopholes in terms of regulations and anti-money laundering supervision. As a result, electronic payment instruments have gradually become an instrument for crimes.Cryptocurrency itself also witnesses high price fluctuation, resulting in a relatively high investment risk. In addition, in recent years, some fraud cases often collect public money in the name of blockchain and/or cryptocurrency. However, except for Security Token, which is a security regulated by the Securities and Exchange Act, and Money Laundering Control Act, the current laws and regulations do not directly regulate cryptocurrency; as a result, Financial Supervision Commission release a press release to remind the public of the potential risks of cryptocurrency investment. In this study, we analyzed all the related court judgements and summarized six major types of crimes related to cryptocurrency, including cryptocurrency as a medium for transaction, delivey of personal data, delivery of cryptocurrency account, payment instrument, money laundering of illicit income, and theft of electricity for mining. The case number is still growing.Recent regulatory amendments have affirmed the AML obligations of third-party payment business and cryptocurrency businesses. That said, related competent authorities remain facing the challenges when supervising the businesses to implement their said obligations. This research proposes that investigation authorities may establish communications with competent authorities and report to the latter the businesses that fail to implement AML obligations as observed during the investigation. Based on this information, competent authorities may set the priority businesses for inspection to implement the risk-based approach supervision. Besides, the investigation authorities may further establish a FinTech criminal database that collects investigation data for the analysis of FinTech-related crime. Through the assistance of technology, investigation authorities, with limited supervisory resources, can more comprehensively and timely supervise this complex system and identify the priority businesses for enhanced supervision. Finally, to reduce the crimes using FinTech as a criminal instrument, this research proposes to introduce a provision under the Criminal Law penalizing the counterfeits of digital payment instruments to fill the loophole under the current Article 201-1 of the Criminal Law that applies only to card payment instruments. In this way, the authenticity and trustworthiness of digital payment instruments may be enhanced."