重新定義「資金」──虛擬貨幣是否該納入銀行法吸金罪範疇？

Redefining“Funds”: Should Virtual Currency Be Included in the Scope of Illegal Fundraising under the Banking Act?

本文探討虛擬貨幣是否應納入我國銀行法第29條之1所規範的「資金」或「款項」範疇，以應對新興的虛擬貨幣投資與非法吸金活動的風險。虛擬貨幣已成為資金流通與儲存的新形式。現今虛擬貨幣尚缺乏專法管理，為金融秩序與投資者保護帶來了前所未有的挑戰。本研究針對銀行法條文中的「資金」進行文義、目的性及體系性解釋，並透過案例分析探討虛擬貨幣之於銀行法監管範疇的適用性。根據銀行法第125條及第29條之1的立法意旨，立法者在1989年間引入「準收受存款」概念，目的在於杜絕以借款、投資或股東加入等名義進行的變相吸金行為，保護社會大眾的投資利益並維護金融秩序。依肯否兩種立場，並提出應將虛擬貨幣納入「資金」的擴張解釋，以符合銀行法防範非法吸金的立法精神。肯定說認為虛擬貨幣具備市場交易價值和流通特性，並且銀行法之修正已明示對虛擬貨幣吸金行為的監管需求，立法者並未將其排除於銀行法範疇之外；否定說則認為虛擬貨幣並不具備法定支付工具的特質，應歸屬證券交易法監管。本文經分析認為，虛擬貨幣已具備資金流通的經濟本質，應涵蓋於銀行法第29條之1的「資金」概念中，以強化對非法吸金行為的遏制力。

This paper examines whether virtual currencies should be incorporated into the definition of“funds”or“monetary items”as regulated under Article 29-1 of Taiwan’s Banking Act to address the risks associated with emerging virtual currency investments and illegal fundraising activities. Virtual currency has emerged as a new form of asset flow and storage. Currently, virtual currencies lack dedicated regulatory frameworks, presenting unprecedented challenges to financial order and investor protection. This paper employs literal, purposive, and systematic interpretations of the term ''funds'' as specified in the Banking Act, and uses case analysis to evaluate the applicability of virtual currencies within the scope of banking regulation. Pursuant to the legislative intent of Articles 125 and 29-1 of the Banking Act, the concept of“quasi-deposit”was introduced in 1989 to deter disguised fundraising practices under the guise of loans, investments, or shareholder contributions, thus safeguarding public investment interests and maintaining financial stability. Arguing both supportive and opposing perspectives, this paper proposes an expansive interpretation to include virtual currencies as“funds”under the Act, aligning with the legislative spirit aimed at preventing illegal fundraising. Proponents argue that virtual currencies possess market value and liquidity features, and that the amendment of the Banking Act explicitly reflects a regulatory intent to address fundraising involving virtual currencies, which were not excluded from the scope of the Act by lawmakers. Opponents contend that virtual currencies do not possess the characteristics of legal tender and thus fall under the reign of Securities and Exchange Act. The author concludes that virtual currencies exhibit the essential economic qualities of fund circulation and should be encompassed in the concept of ''funds'' under the said Article 29-1 of the Banking Act to enhance deterrence against illegal fundraising activities.