| 篇名 |
論我國P2P網路借貸平台法制之迷思──民間借貸或違法吸金？ |
| 並列篇名 |
The Myths of the Legal System of P2P Lending Platforms－Private Lending or Article 29-1 of Taiwan Banking Act? |
| 作者 |
莊永丞 |
| 中文摘要 |
P2P網路借貸平台究應如何規範，可謂聚訟盈庭、莫衷一是。基於P2P網路借貸平台已成為中小企業新興重要融資管道之際，規範的強度與密度若過大，不但會產生莫大之遵法成本，更會扼殺新創、中小企業之融資管道，因此，如何在投資人保護和新興融資管道之間尋求平衡，以發展國民經濟，應有加以認定之必要。本文將探究P2P網路借貸平台之優勢與風險並介紹其運作之商業模式為何、融資平台之資金供給者，應如何保護，並以美國聯邦最高法院所提出之Howey Test與Reves Test等審查標準加以認定其是否屬投資契約。另外，本文將從民法債權讓與開展，說明其與聯合貸款及參與貸款之異同，並在討論其與違法吸金之分際與判準後，針對我國實務逕以銀行法相繩違法吸金行為，提出批判。 |
| 英文摘要 |
The regulation of P2P lending platforms has been widely debated with no consensus reached. Given that P2P lending platforms have become an important emerging financing channel for SMEs, excessive regulatory intensity and density would not only result in significant compliance costs but also stifle the financing channels for startups and SMEs. Therefore, it is necessary to find a balance between investor protection and the development of new financing channels to promote the national economy. This article will explore the advantages and risks of P2P lending platforms and introduce their business models. It will also discuss how to protect the fund suppliers of these financing platforms and use the Howey Test and Reves Test proposed by the United States Supreme Court to determine whether they qualify as investment contracts. Furthermore, the article will explain the differences and similarities between civil law assignment of claims, syndicated loans, and loan participation. It will also discuss the distinctions and criteria between these and Article 29-1 of Taiwan Banking Act, and critique the practice of immediately applying banking law to punish illegal fundraising activities in Taiwan. |
| 起訖頁 |
68-95 |
| 關鍵詞 |
P2P網路借貸平台、Howey Test、Reves Test、參與貸款、聯合貸款、Peer-to-Peer Lending Platform、Howey Test、Reves Test、Loan Participation、Syndicated Loan |
| 刊名 |
月旦法學雜誌 |
| 出版單位 |
元照出版公司
|
| 期數 |
202407 (350期) |
| DOI |
10.53106/1025593135005 複製DOI DOI申請 |
| QRCode |
 |
| |
