数据加载中.....
|
请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/158774
|
| 题名: | 金融科技創新與監理型態：台灣與國際法制之比較與適應性分析
FinTech Innovation and Regulatory Models: A Comparative and Adaptive Analysis of Legal Frameworks in Taiwan and International Jurisdictions |
| 作者: | 王策緯
Wang, Che-Wei |
| 贡献者: | 王立達
Wang, Li-dar
王策緯
Wang, Che-Wei |
| 关键词: | 金融科技
監理科技
監理沙盒
適應性監理
監理工具箱
FinTech
RegTech
Regulatory Sandbox
Adaptive Regulation
Regulatory Toolbox |
| 日期: | 2025 |
| 上传时间: | 2025-08-04 15:40:05 (UTC+8) |
| 摘要: | 隨著金融科技（FinTech）快速演進，傳統金融監理制度面臨前所未有的挑戰。本文聚焦於我國現行金融監理思維與法制架構，探討其在因應創新需求與維持市場穩健間，如何提升制度彈性、監理效率與國際接軌能力。研究首先從制度實證出發，針對「監理沙盒」與「業務試辦」雙軌機制進行分析，指出兩者在法規調適速度、標準一致性與創新落地機制上均存有結構性瓶頸。其中，「好好投資」案長期無法落地與「元大FIDO」案監理見解不一的情形，突顯我國在制度調適與裁量標準上仍顯不足。
本文採比較法方法，分析歐盟、英國、新加坡與美國等主要法域在金融科技監理制度上的設計與實踐，聚焦於不同監理階段之工具配置、規範型態（如硬法、軟法、一般法）與監理手段（自律與他律）之運用，並結合「適應性監理」（adaptive regulation）與「監理工具箱」（regulatory toolbox）等相關理論進行評析。
研究發現，相較於國際間已趨向系統性、分層次與具調適力的監理模式，我國現行制度在制度彈性與工具多元性方面仍有明顯落差，尚未形成如新加坡般涵蓋事前、事中與事後完整流程，並能依創新風險與技術特性動態調整之監理體系。
因此，本文提出我國監理架構改革之初步建議，包括：強化硬法、軟法與一般法之組合運用，建構層次分明、可隨情境調整之監理工具箱；建立制度共規與標準制定平台，強化業界參與與專業知識回饋機制；設置跨機關協調平台，提升監理一致性與政策溝通效率；並積極引入監理科技（RegTech），強化事中監控與事後學習能力。期能據此協助我國建構出一套既具前瞻性與彈性，亦能有效促進金融創新與強化市場穩健的智慧監理框架。
The rapid evolution of Financial Technology (FinTech) is challenging traditional regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions. This study focuses on Taiwan’s current financial regulatory architecture, examining how its legal and supervisory mechanisms may be enhanced in terms of flexibility, efficiency, and global alignment to better respond to ongoing innovations. By analyzing the implementation and outcomes of Taiwan’s dual-track innovation support mechanisms—namely the “regulatory sandbox” and the “business trial program”—this research identifies structural limitations related to regulatory adaptability, inconsistent standards, and inefficiencies in transitioning innovative services into formal market entry. The “Howinvest” case and the “Yuanta FIDO” case serve as key illustrations of these regulatory shortcomings.
Employing a comparative legal methodology, this study further analyzes the regulatory models of the European Union, United Kingdom, Singapore, and the United States. It explores how these jurisdictions configure regulatory phases, apply diverse legal norms (hard law, soft law, and general law), and adopt supervisory instruments (self-regulation and external regulation). Theoretical perspectives such as adaptive regulation and the regulatory toolbox are also drawn upon to evaluate institutional design.
Findings indicate that Taiwan’s current approach lacks the systemic responsiveness and multi-layered toolkit seen in more adaptive international models. In contrast to jurisdictions like Singapore—which integrates ex-ante, ongoing, and ex-post regulatory tools—Taiwan’s regime remains constrained by fragmented implementation and insufficient institutional flexibility.
In response, this study proposes several reform directions: building a dynamic and tiered regulatory toolbox; fostering co-regulatory platforms with meaningful industry participation; establishing inter-agency coordination mechanisms; and actively incorporating regulatory technology (RegTech). These policy recommendations aim to assist Taiwan in constructing a forward-looking, flexible, and innovation-conducive supervisory environment that balances market development with effective risk governance. |
| 參考文獻: | 一、 中文文獻
（一） 期刊論文
陳豐年（2019）。智慧監理：金融科技之另類監理選擇？《萬國法律》，52，52–63。取自 https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail/15606473-201910-201910140004-201910140004-52-63（最後瀏覽日期：2025年5月10日）
（二） 網路文獻
曾立宇，新創基金配對平台「FundSwap」讓投資人彼此交換持股，不只換標的還能節稅，數位時代，2021年9月24日，https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/65215/fundswap20210924（最後瀏覽日：2025年7月17日）。
二、 英文文獻
（一） 專書
ANU BRADFORD, THE BRUSSELS EFFECT: HOW THE EUROPEAN UNION RULES THE WORLD (2020).
Pei Sai Fan, Chapter 15 - Singapore Approach to Develop and Regulate FinTech, in HANDBOOK OF BLOCKCHAIN, DIGITAL FINANCE, AND INCLUSION, VOLUME 1 347 (David Lee Kuo Chuen & Robert Deng eds., 2018), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128104415000154.
Ken Huang et al., AI Regulations, in GENERATIVE AI SECURITY: THEORIES AND PRACTICES 61 (Ken Huang et al. eds., 2024), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54252-7_3.
VALERIO LEMMA, FINTECH REGULATION: EXPLORING NEW CHALLENGES OF THE CAPITAL MARKETS UNION (2020).
MATHIAS SIEMS, COMPARATIVE LAW (2018).
（二） 期刊論文
Deirdre Ahern, Regulatory Lag, Regulatory Friction and Regulatory Transition as FinTech Disenablers: Calibrating an EU Response to the Regulatory Sandbox Phenomenon, 22 EUROPEAN BUSINESS ORGANIZATION LAW REVIEW 395 (2021).
Hilary J. Allen, $=€=Bitcoin?, 76 MARYLAND LAW REVIEW 877 (2017).
Lori S Bennear & Jonathan B Wiener, Adaptive Regulation: Instrument Choice for Policy Learning over Time, OBTENIDO DE UNIVERSIDAD DE HARVARD: HTTPS://WWW. HKS. HARVARD. EDU (2019).
Julia Black, Decentring Regulation: Understanding the Role of Regulation and Self-Regulation in a “Post-Regulatory” World, 54 CURRENT LEGAL PROBLEMS (2001).
Eric Brown & Dóra Piroska, Governing Fintech and Fintech as Governance: The Regulatory Sandbox, Riskwashing, and Disruptive Social Classification, 27 NEW POLITICAL ECONOMY 19 (2022).
Chris Brummer & Yesha Yadav, Fintech and the Innovation Trilemma, 107 GEO. L.J. 235 (2018).
Agnieszka Butor-Keler & Michał Polasik, The Role of Regulatory Sandboxes in the Development of Innovations on the Financial Services Market: The Case of the United Kingdom, 19 EKONOMIA I PRAWO. ECONOMICS AND LAW 621 (2020).
Marta Cantero Gamito & Christopher T Marsden, Artificial Intelligence Co-Regulation? The Role of Standards in the EU AI Act, 32 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY eaae011 (2024).
Anton N Didenko, Cybersecurity Regulation in Singapore’s Financial Sector: Protecting FinTech ‘Ants’ in a Jungle Full of ‘Elephants,’ UNSW LAW RESEARCH PAPER (2020).
Philip Frana, Assessing Smart Nation Singapore as an International Model for AI Responsibility, 7 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON RESPONSIBILITY (2024).
Ferdinando Giglio, Fintech: A Literature Review, 15 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS RESEARCH 80 (2021).
Paolo Giudici, Fintech Risk Management: A Research Challenge for Artificial Intelligence in Finance, 1 FRONTIERS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (2018).
Dermot Hodson, The Politics of FinTech: Technology, Regulation, and Disruption in UK and German Retail Banking, 99 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 859 (2021).
Päivi Hutukka, Fintech Law in the European Union, the United States and China: Regulation of Financial Technology in Comparative Context, 31 MAASTRICHT JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN AND COMPARATIVE LAW 559 (2024).
Jiaying Christine Jiang, Regulating Blockchain? An Ex-Post Regulatory Impact Assessment of the U.S. Blockchain Regulatory Regime, 8 JOURNAL OF LAW & CYBER WARFARE 5 (2022).
Željko Jović & Ivan Nikolić, The Darker Side of Fintech: The Emergence of New Risks, 25 ZAGREB INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 46 (2022).
János Kálmán, The Role of Regulatory Sandboxes in FinTech Innovation: A Comparative Case Study of the UK, Singapore, and Hungary, 4 FINTECH (2025).
Ilias Kapsis, A Truly Future-Oriented Legal Framework for Fintech in the EU, 31 EUROPEAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW (2020).
Paul Langley & Andrew Leyshon, FinTech Platform Regulation: Regulating with/against Platforms in the UK and China, 16 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF REGIONS, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY 257 (2023).
Orly Lobel, The AI Regulatory Pyramid: A Taxonomy & Analysis of the Emerging Toolbox in the Global Race for the Regulation and Governance of Artificial Intelligence Symposium: The Global Race toward AI Regulation, 57 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW 859 (2024).
William Magnuson, Regulating Fintech, 71 VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW 1167 (2018).
Hazik Mohamed, Fintech Regulation and Governance Fromthe Singapore Perspective, 10 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ISLAMIC BUSINESS 1 (2025).
Judy Mok & Merissa Pico, Developments in the Real-Time Payments Landscape Survey - Consumer Financial Services, 79 BUSINESS LAWYER 591 (2024).
Jan Monkiewicz & Marek Monkiewicz, Financial Sector Supervision in Digital Age: Transformation in Progress, 14 FOUNDATIONS OF MANAGEMENT 25 (2022).
Saule T. Omarova, Dealing with Disruption: Emerging Approaches to Fintech Regulation The Rise of Fintech, 61 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW & POLICY 25 (2020).
Saule T Omarova, Technology v Technocracy: Fintech as a Regulatory Challenge, 6 JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL REGULATION 75 (2020).
Ramona Rupeika-Apoga & Eleftherios I. Thalassinos, Ideas for a Regulatory Definition of FinTech, VIII INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 136 (2020).
Pedro Schilling de Carvalho, Retaining Influence in Post-Brexit International Financial Regulation: Lessons from the UK’s FinTech Framework, 8 JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL REGULATION 104 (2022).
Rudolf B. Schlesinger, The Past and Future of Comparative Law, 43 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW 477 (1995).
Jon Truby, Fintech and the City: Sandbox 2.0 Policy and Regulatory Reform Proposals, 34 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF LAW, COMPUTERS & TECHNOLOGY 277 (2020).
Yesha Yadav, Fintech and International Financial Regulation, 53 VAND. J. TRANSNAT’L L. 1109 (2020).
（三） 學位論文
Christina Chua Xiu Fang, Finance and Technology: Why Fintech Is the Future of Finance–a Case Study of Singapore’s Financial Sector, 2023.
（四） 網路文獻
Christian J. Mahoney White, Meet FEAT: Singapore’s New AI and Data Analytics Principles for the Financial Sector, CLEARY FINTECH UPDATE (2018), https://www.clearyfintechupdate.com/2018/11/meet-feat-singapores-new-ai-data-analytics-principles-financial-sector/.
Ringe, Wolf-Georg & Christopher Ruof, A Regulatory Sandbox for Robo Advice (EBI Working Paper Series, No. 2018-26, Apr. 2019), https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=
3188828. |
| 描述: | 碩士
國立政治大學
法學院碩士在職專班
113961018 |
| 資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0113961018 |
| 数据类型: | thesis |
| 显示于类别: | [法學院碩士在職專班] 學位論文
|
文件中的档案:
| 档案 |
描述 |
大小 | 格式 | 浏览次数 |
|---|
| 101801.pdf | | 2077Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | 检视/开启 |
|
在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.
|
