博碩士論文 104424024 完整後設資料紀錄

DC 欄位 語言
DC.contributor產業經濟研究所zh_TW
DC.creator鄭之穎zh_TW
DC.creatorChih-Ying Chengen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-7-13T07:39:07Z
dc.date.available2017-7-13T07:39:07Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.urihttp://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw:88/thesis/view_etd.asp?URN=104424024
dc.contributor.department產業經濟研究所zh_TW
DC.description國立中央大學zh_TW
DC.descriptionNational Central Universityen_US
dc.description.abstract本研究探討我國面對金融科技(FinTech)與興起時欲訂定之新監理法規之關鍵問題,以對我新國立法提出有效建議。近年來,全球金融科技快速興起,各國政府為監理新型態的金融創新,紛紛進行制度改革。其中由英國創設之金融監理制度-監理沙盒(Regulatory Sandbox)在國際上最被廣泛參考。我國以「金融科技創新實驗」作為監理沙盒之正式名稱,行政院並於2017年5月4日所第3547號會議通過「金融科技創新實驗條例草案」。本研究受限於撰寫時國內尚未通過金融科技立法,故將以該草案作為我國制度創立之主要討論對象。 本研究採用文獻歸納法及制度比較法,針對國際監理沙盒發展較具代表性之國家,包含英國(FCA,Regulatory Sandbox,2017)、新加坡(FinTech Regulatory Sandbox Guidelines,2016)及澳洲(Regulatory Guide 257,2016),與我國金融科技創新實驗條例草案進行制度比較分析。分析之架構爰參以我國草案之章節順序。 本文研究結果發現,我國金融科技創新實驗條例草案架構較他國監理沙盒制度規定得更為詳細,卻未有明確的政策目標,恐難以促成整體市場有效因應金融創新。一旦金融科技創新實驗結束後,進入真實市場運作之制度尚未規範。草案目前僅導入金融消費者保護法之部分條文,似有對消費者保護不足之疑慮。本研究提出我國金融科技立法應改善之方向,包含確立總體政策目標、建立落地條款、尋求利害關係人協作,以及加入更多金融消費者保護法規範等建議,期使我國金融科技立法得以更健全發展。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract FinTech is promoting governments to face financial regulation reform worldwide. The UK government established Regulatory Sandbox system. Regulatory Sandbox allow players to experiment with innovative financial products or services in the production environment but within a well-defined space and duration. Many countries started to introduce Sandbox into regulation system as a response to FinTech. The Executive Yuan announced “Financial Technology Innovation Experiment Bill Draft” on 4, May, 2017 as the legislation source of FinTech regulation law in Taiwan. This Draft is the main discussion object in our study. Our study compared four countries sandbox system, including UK (Regulatory Sandbox,2016), Singapore(FinTech Regulatory Sandbox Guidelines,2016)and Australia (Regulatory Guide 257, 2016), with Taiwan’s Draft. Analysing the system advantages and disadvantages between countries. This study brought out several conclusions. First, although the Drift is more exhaustive than other countries system, the policy object of this Draft could have been defined more clearly in order to encourage FinTech innovation. Second, the Drift should draw up the floor terms after the sandbox process ends. It’s an essential procedure to guide FinTech products or services to enter reality market. Third, the consumer protection is not enough if only part of the financial consumer protection law article were placed in the Draft. Thus, the advices to improve Taiwan’s FinTech legislation development, are defining the government FinTech policy, set up the floor term, stuck holders collaboration and increase consumer protections.en_US
DC.subject金融科技zh_TW
DC.subject監理沙盒zh_TW
DC.subject金融監理zh_TW
DC.subject金融科技創新實驗zh_TW
DC.subject制度比較zh_TW
DC.subjectFinTechen_US
DC.subjectRegulatory Sandboxen_US
DC.subjectFinancial Regulationen_US
DC.subjectFinancial Technologyen_US
DC.title國際監理沙盒趨勢對國內金融科技立法之研究zh_TW
dc.language.isozh-TWzh-TW
DC.titleCompare International Regulatory Sandbox with Taiwan FinTech Legislationen_US
DC.type博碩士論文zh_TW
DC.typethesisen_US
DC.publisherNational Central Universityen_US

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明