銀行法令遵循制度相關問題之研究-以法遵、法務角色差異及重大裁罰個案為中心

Abstract

本文主要以「金融控股公司及銀行業內部控制及稽核制度實施辦法」歷次修正有關法令遵循制度之條文並輔以論述金融控股公司及銀行業之法令遵循主管角色以及金融機構法令遵循制度建制為出發，就傳統法務、法遵職責評析近年來之重大裁罰案件，如洗錢防制、利害關係人交易、董事會執掌、金融消費者保護、個資管理、自有資金投資、授信業務、資安議題等(不乏多家知名金控如永豐金控、中信金控、第一金控、遠雄人壽、安聯人壽、富邦金控等)說明法務、法遵主管之獨立性及重要性，並探討銀行實務依據現行法令所執行之法遵制度有效性。法遵角色法令建制近20年以來，卻是前年8月19日兆豐銀行此有台灣國內金融機構外匯龍頭且歷史最悠久銀行美譽之稱的海外分行—紐約分行，因違反美國當地之洗錢防制法以及個資法，遭受紐約州金融服務署（DFS,New York Department of financial service）處以台灣金融史上有史以來最高罰金，罰款1.8億美元，並要求10日內引入DFS指定之法律遵循諮詢，顧問費高達台幣57 億，而引發國內一連串對法遵功能議題之探討及效應。讓台灣金融圈面臨政府官員及金融機構，無論業務上或人事上之大地震，或許我們也可稱之為翻轉。國內開始重視法遵主管之角色扮演，藉由近年之重要裁罰案件，可以觀察我國金融主管機關，已跟隨國際潮流，在面對各項業務之進行時，提升法遵主管所應負之責任，並責成金融業須加快腳步，內化要求所有從業人員遵循法令，讓金融業走向亞洲盃甚至是國際化邁進。改變不是壞事，金融業務雖繁雜瑣碎，重要是如何從龐大業務體系釐清有效執行法遵循制度之施力點，並得有效監控金融機構遵循各項業務之法令遵循及檢視建置制度之有效性，因此檢視制度之有效性，除以系統監控外，人為認知之差異，亦會使制度之有效性有所偏離。以防治洗錢為例，在監控各項洗錢防制之交易類型時，仍需最後人為佐以最終審查，倘若人員訓練不足，或未落實或漏未檢查，都將使監控機制之有效性大打折扣，徒為枉然。\n本文主要探討，法務及法遵角色之分工與合作，如何在金融業務之法令遵循制度實施情形下，遵守法令，開發業務?甚或是建立法規風險監控機制?今年新修正內部控制及稽核制度實施辦法已做最好說明與見證。除系統監控外，審查及諮詢角色，如何為功能之強化，始可將金融業務法令遵循制度成為良性循環。按現行法務法遵傳統營運模式，諮詢功能尚無法量化成為績效值，企業營運上，法遵及法務該有之分際及拿捏，一直是企業法遵及法務人員無法釐清之界線，要營運績效之同時，如何遵守法令?魚與熊掌可否兼顧？的確是大議題，最後本文因應金融主管機關努力推行之公司治理制度最為結尾，僅針對金融業辦理公司治理應有之內涵及案例，呼應法令遵循及公司治理之兩大支柱，始得企業主對於社會責任、企業責任、商譽與誠信之要求，回饋社會。從食安問題引發企業倒閉、退出市場可以觀察到，社會漸漸對於企業責任及義務已有所要求，透過透明之市場機制，企業永續經營發展之必要，法令遵循與法務勢必要牽制與合作。金融主管機關引進吹哨者機制，讓企業得避免人為舞弊之發生，使企業更健全經營，期待金融業更加快腳步體認法務及法遵角色之扮演，如何建立完善業務審查機制，此為本文討論之初衷。

This article is based on various amendments to the "Measures for the Implementation of Financial Controlling Companies and the Banking Internal Control and Audit System." It is based on the principle of obeying the supervisory role and the legal compliance system, and adopts traditional legal affairs, legal compliance, and domestic major offenses in the past six months (eg, CITIC Financial Holdings and Farglory Life Insurance stated that law enforcement complies with the independence and importance of the supervisor, and discusses the legal compliance and effectiveness of bank practices based on current laws and regulations. August 19 of last year, the largest and oldest overseas branch in Taiwan’s financial sector—Shandong Bank’s New York Branch—became the Department of Financial Services of New York (DFS) in the history of Taiwan’s finance for violating the money laundering control law. The maximum fine was $180 million and required 10 days to introduce DFS-designated legal compliance advisors. NT$5.7 billion in fines and high consulting fees. Let Taiwan`s financial circles face government officials and financial institutions, regardless of major earthquakes in business or personnel affairs, or flipping.It is true that money laundering is the focus of important discussion.\nThis article mainly discusses that other laws except for money laundering comply with the implementation of the system, the division of labor and cooperation of legal and legal compliance roles, the risk of money laundering operations for system monitoring, and whether financial services should also establish regulatory risk monitoring? The auditing system implementation method has been best illustrated and witnessed. In addition to system monitoring, the review and advisory roles need to rely on the strengthening of the role of legal and legal compliance roles. Only then can there be a way to make the financial business decree compliance system a good cycle. At present, there is no discussion about the role of legal affairs and the clarification of the role of legal compliance. According to the current business model, consultation and review can not be quantified to be a performance value. In terms of business operations, legal compliance and legal affairs should be different, and it has always been an enterprise law. In compliance with the legal staff`s inability to state clearly, whether it is possible to take compliance with the ordinances while operating performance?\nIn the past few years, due to Shuo An`s problems causing business closures and withdrawal from the market Something has happened. Through the transparent market mechanism, the need for sustainable development of the company is maintained, and compliance with laws and regulations is bound to contain and cooperate. The so-called cooperation is not such as the use of whistle blowers, but the establishment of a whistleblower mechanism allows companies to confirm the avoidance of artificial fraud. This is particularly true for financial institutions. The competent authorities have already seen the direction. The industry should confirm the role played by the legal and legal compliance roles and how to implement the establishment of the effectiveness of the consultation and review system. This is the original intention of this article.