金融隱私權與銀行監理之間－－從全球金融海嘯看我國金融危機事件下銀行保密原則之修正

Between Financial Privacy and Banking Supervision - On the Revise of Bank Secrecy Principle under Taiwan Financial Crisis Event from Global Financial Tsunami

一九三四年瑞士銀行法爲西方國家建立銀行保密的法律原則，並成爲瑞士銀行的立業根基，該項原則乃銀行從業人員的專業責任，一旦違反對於其客戶或第三人之保密原則，將得以科處有期徒刑或罰金等刑事處罰。由於銀行保密原則保護客戶的個人資料及其金融隱私，各國政商名流皆願爲其國際客戶，惟個人或企業藉以進行利益輸送、洗錢或逃漏稅，不僅影響各國政府金融監理工作的執行成效，轉而思考如何調整稅務政策，以利降低稅賦而爭取金融全球化及自由化下的資金，同時也造成採取採取該項原則的國家遭受國際孤立的壓力與負面形象。因此，歐亞境外金融中心新加坡、香港、英國澤西島與馬恩島，列支敦斯登，安道爾共和國、瑞士、盧森堡及奧地利等國家或地區，相繼修訂銀行保密原則，並放寬外國政府追查洗錢或逃漏稅的限制，甚至主動追查可疑組織的帳戶往來情況。晚近受全球金融海嘯衝擊，二○○九年四月西方開發國家，新興國家和發展中國家共同參與的G20倫敦峰會延續G7、OECD會員國會議結論，也要求經營免稅天堂的國家或地區必須簽署稅務資訊合作協定，並同意向拒簽者實施制裁及公布黑名單，藉以要求銀行等金融機構提供金融資料，以利各國政府打擊逃漏稅與洗錢犯罪。然而，各國政府從全球化而在貨幣或租稅政策縮減其主導性，到因應國際金融危機而提高其監理權限，例如免除銀行保密義務，以利掌握金融犯罪的個人資訊，是否僅出於金融危機的經濟情勢，能否進一步通過法律論理的檢視？若有提高銀行監理之必要性，有無損及金融機構客戶之人權保障，皆值得進一步探討。

Bank secrecy or bank privacy is a legal principle created by the Swiss Banking Act of 1934, which led to the famous Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS). The Banking Act of 1934 considered the banker's duty of secrecy as a professional duty. Any staff of UBS or other banker who divulges banking secrets about his or her clients or third parties will be punishable by imprisonment or fine. With the pressure and negative image of tax evasion and money laundering, the European and Asian offshore finance center like Singapore, Hong Kong, Jersey Island and Isle of Man in England, Principality of Liechtenstein, Principality of Andorra revised the bank secrecy principle in the Banking Act and relaxed the restrictions of money-laundry prevention and tax evasion. In addition to the claims to supervise offshore financial center and tax paradises, the Summit also required tax paradises to sign the bilateral Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) and agreed to impose sanction against those in the blacklist. The government could get financial information from bank or other institutions, and strike at tax evasion and money-laundry crime. But the exemption from the bank's obligation to keep secret could be examined by legal reasoning or not. How to balance the necessity of banking supervision and the human rights of financial institutions, clients? All issues mentioned above were worthy to be explored.