重省我國資金移轉機構之審慎監理架構──以法體系框架為中心

Restructuring the Prudential Regulation on Taiwan Money Transmission Institution—Focus on the Structural Regulatory Framework

電子支付在我國之使用日漸普遍，可見資金移轉業務確實擁有一定市場需求。然而，現行規範設計以及方針在業者與主管機關間尚未取得足夠共識。有鑒於業務發展與風險控管之角力不僅可能降低使用者的使用體驗，更可能影響資金移轉業務於我國進一步之發展，本文即欲探尋可能存在的平衡點。本文將先行梳理我國分散的資金移轉機構法律規範，並劃定各該規範之適用範圍，以確立資金移轉法制的體系架構。而後，本文將著眼於資金移轉法制體系與銀行法適用分野之劃定，主要從收受儲值業務與匯兌業務之探討出發，蓋此二業務在資金移轉法體系中尚未有清楚或適宜的標準以區分是否應適用銀行法。本文先自資金移轉業務實務面提出可能存在之疑義，再行主張資金移轉法制宜以系統性風險程度判斷應採取之審慎監理架構，如此始得符合金融差異化監理下監理資源妥適分配之目標，同時令業者在合理之監理密度下運營。本文亦將於分析比較資金移轉業務與收受存款業務之系統性風險程度差異後，基於金融差異化監理理論，主張資金移轉機構不需同銀行採取諸多宏觀審慎監理手段，而僅需主要透過微觀審慎監理之規範即可控管風險。另，就微觀審慎監理下如何設計資金移轉機構與銀行監理規範之差異化，本文採取比較法研究，借鏡同樣採取微觀審慎監理控管資金移轉機構系統性風險的美國法與歐盟法，分析比較法所設計的規範架構。最終，本文回歸系統性風險控管的角度，觀察比較法的立法設計是否足以建構更妥善的審慎監理架構，一併提出資金移轉機構法體系框架的修正建議。

Given the scattered money transmission regulations in Taiwan, this article first organizes the relevant regulations and tries to articulate the regulated scope. After picturing the regulation structure, this article will focus on the structural issue with respect to the line between the money transmission regulations and the Banking Act. This structural issue mainly will be in relation to the stored-value and remittance business since there is no clear or appropriate standard to distinguish whether banking law should apply to these two businesses under the money transmission regulatory regime in Taiwan. In order to propose an optimal distinction line and, in the meantime, strike the balance of risk control and the money transmission business development, this article advises that we should take systemic risk control theory into consideration to re-establish the prudential regulatory framework for money transmission business. After analyzing and comparing the systemic risk degree of deposit-taking and m oney transmission businesses, this article confirms that a Macro-Prudential Regulation should not apply to money transmission institutions. As for the approach to deregulate money transmission institutions from a Micro-Prudential Regulation perspective, this article will conduct a comparative legal analysis on the relevant US and EU regulations to establish an optimal regulatory framework which is in line with the systemic risk control theory. In conclusion, based on the systemic risk control purpose, this article will examine both US and EU regulations and evaluate the prudential regulation designs in order to address the structural problem entrenched in Taiwan’s money transmission regulatory framework and to advise the optimal amendments.