Learn From Biden’s Digital Asset Executive Order: Opportunities and Challenges Ahead for Digital Finance in Taiwan

/ 2022, Highlights / By

Information

Time: 2022/8/29 02:00-04:00PM
Venue: IEAT International Conference Center Meeting 8F Room 2

 

Highlights

Professor Yang analyzed the different regulatory frameworks for digital assets in various countries from three perspectives: issuance, transaction, and the industry. In terms of issuance, one of the determining factors is whether issuing the assets requires financial investment. Bitcoin is deemed as digital assets for the fact that it is issued through mining instead of investment. When investments are involved in digital assets, it can be further classified into two categories:

  • Promising capital return/surplus allocation
  • Promising exchanging specified goods and services or exchanging specified assets/rights in a limited timeframe.

The first category, also known as Securities Token Offering (STO), encompasses stronger financial traits and requires stronger regulations. The second category is similar to coupons. For example, Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) belong to this category, and the regulatory focus here will be more about protecting the investors.  

In terms of the regulatory framework for digital assets, some countries (U.S. and U.K.) simply apply existing financial regulations, while some (Thailand, Malaysia, and E.U.) choose to develop new regulations tailored to the new products and services. China is another example that bans issuing digital assets overall to prevent any related legal problems.

What the regulators care about the most is the regulation of digital assets transactions. Crimes such as fraud, market manipulation, and insider trading can cripple the market, cause investor losses, and potentially produce political pressure. Some members of Congress in Taiwan have been raising concerns regarding this issue. The regulatory model for the aforementioned crimes can also be divided into two categories: applicable, existing regulations and special regulations. Existing regulations can be Securities and Exchange Act and Future Trading Act in Taiwan, for example. On the other hand, the European Union’s regulations for non-securities digital assets include rules against market manipulation and insiders transactions.

The industry of digital assets includes trading platforms and E-wallet service providers. Internationally, new regulations on customer assets and trading platforms are also emerging. New York was the first to issue licenses for companies managing client assets; Japan and Singapore are also developing similar regulations.

Overall, the global scene of financial regulation is becoming more and more diverse. On the other hand, Taiwan has been addressing these innovations using the same old model. Prof. Yang suggested several directions for Taiwan’s regulatory framework development in the short, medium, and long term. In the short term, he suggested loosening up the strict regulations on security tokens and expanding their applicability. Moreover, special exchange regulations could be introduced for the issuance of stablecoins, as regulating stablecoins is unavoidable. Taiwan’s relatively loose regulation on trading may also be a concern. The quick solution is to apply the futures trading law to regulate the trading of a wider range of digital asset. This can be done through legal interpretation without the need to amend the law. The same can apply to the regulation of the industry. In the long run, Yang recommended developing tailored regulations.

Prosecutor Lee looked at digital assets from the perspective of crime detection. He described several potentially illegal virtual currency applications, including non-custodial wallets, smart contract abuse, and NFT abuse. He believed that virtual currencies need to be regulated. However, according to the “Regulations Governing Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism for Enterprises Handling Virtual Currency Platform or Transaction, “enterprises subject to regulation are limited to legal persons registered in Taiwan, legal persons not registered in Taiwan and natural persons are not within the scope.

Prosecutor Lee pointed out that implementation is not easy. Authorities often lack resources, and many service providers are not registered in Taiwan. Even if all providers are registered in Taiwan, it would be impossible to inspect each of them due to the lack of workforce and capacity of the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC). He suggested that the regulation should include all virtual asset service providers. The authority should develop a sub-law requiring operators to issue a statement for future reference and publicize the list. The third-party payment model, which requires these operators to register in Taiwan after the payment flow in Taiwan reaches specific numbers, is another potential model. This way, the providers will be under FSC’s supervision with clear operation rules.

Representing the industry, Eugene Lim first referenced the principle of Biden’s Executive Order On Ensuring Responsible Development Of Digital Assets: same business, same risks, same rules. Taking his company as an example, Lim explained that to provide services in different countries, they had to apply for licenses from different governments according to each country’s national regulations. He emphasized the diversity of digital assets and was optimistic about Taiwan’s asset management potential. He observed that Taiwan’s financial regulatory system is difficult for start-ups on digital financial services and products. Many Taiwanese choose to set up companies abroad with their innovations, and Taiwanese also prefer to invest overseas. The industry anticipates that the Taiwanese government will refrain from regulating digital assets with the traditional regulatory model. He believed Taiwan could combine the country’s financial and technological advantages to evolve the digital asset industry. He also suggested that the authority could loosen up on the regulations of domestic weak digital currencies to create more options for Taiwanese investors.

 

Question: Will Biden’s executive order have any special impact on US-Taiwan relations?

Professor Yang believes that there will be no significant impact. The legislative process and context of the United States are very different from Taiwan. The regulation of securities, stablecoins and money laundering preventive rules in U.S.’s Executive Order are worth learning. Prosecutor Li added that in terms of regulating money laundry, Taiwan mostly learns from Europe and Singapore.

Question: What is the impact of Biden’s executive order on Singapore?

As a Singaporean, Eugene said that the six principal policy objectives of Biden’s Executive Order all focused on the United States only. However, the power of the U.S. dollar can still potentially affect other countries. Singapore has not been affected by the U.S. executive order. The country is also more advanced in terms of regulations. Lim also pointed to a potential contradiction worth noting for Taiwanese, which was the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters (Common Reporting Standards, CRS). Taiwan has yet signed CRS with any country and this could be exploited by offenders.

 

Question: any suggestions for enhancing Taiwan’s regulations in the face of the trend of digital assets?

Reflecting on Lim’s experience, Prof. Yang noted that Taiwanese companies cannot obtain licenses for digital asset operation, which also leads to regulatory issues cannot be solved by money laundering prevention regulations. This could be because categories of domestic financial businesses are relatively few; difficulty in obtaining licenses (capital thresholds and conservative operating restrictions) also affects the willingness of operators to obtain licenses.

Prosecutor Lee also believed the lack of licenses is a pain point for these virtual asset operators, and the Financial Supervisory Commission also does not view virtual asset operators as financial operators. Understanding that FSC’s focus is consumer protection, one possible solution could be starting from a narrower supervision scope.

 

Question: what is Central Bank’s role in digital assets?

Professor Yang: the central bank mainly deals with monetary policy. The Central Bank of Taiwan is currently developing and experimenting with its own digital currency, but large-scale application will not be possible in the short term. He also believes that the central bank will have to deal with stablecoins in the nearest future as they have become common payment methods.

Prosecutor Lee: online transactions are ubiquitous in Taiwan with diverse payment methods. However, the additional fees are burdensome for either consumers or vendors. A digital currency issued by the central bank would seem to be the simplest payment method, but privacy issues still need to be addressed.

Eugene: Singapore aims to become the asset management center in Asia, and digital assets are no exception. Therefore, Singapore is relatively flexible and open regarding digital asset management licenses. However, the regulatory authority in Singapore remains conservative. There were several incidents this June that prompted investigations from the Singapore Regulatory Authority.

自拜登數位資產政策，一探臺灣數位金融之機會與挑戰

/ 2022, 講堂精彩回顧 / By

議程

14:00–14:05     活動介紹

14:05–15:45     焦點座談

  • 主持人－洪思竹 前所長（國立海洋大學海洋法律研究所）
  • 與談人－
    • 楊岳平 副教授（台灣大學法律學院）
    • 李秉錡 檢察官（臺灣新北地方檢察署）
    • Eugene Lim (Head of Private Wealth, Matrixport)

15:45–16:00        現場問答

會議紀要

楊岳平 副教授（台灣大學法律學院）簡報下載

        楊岳平副教授主要從金融監管角度來分析目前國際間不同國家的數位資產監管架構，他分別從數位資產發行層面的監管、交易層面的監管，以及數位資產業者監管等三方面來說明。首先在發行層面監管部分，分類上會先觀察個案的數位資產發行是否涉及吸收資金，例如比特幣的發行是透過挖礦，無涉及投入資金，即屬於此類。而涉及吸收資金的數位資產，可進一步用發行名目來分類。其中「承諾返還本金」及「承諾未來分配利潤」類型的數位資產金融性較強，與存款、發行證券類似，會啟動相對強的監管措施；而「未來承諾可換取特定商品或服務」及「限時換取特定資產或權利」等的數位資產，例如NFT等，比較類似現實生活中禮券兌換概念，其金融性較弱，管制上會比較接近從投資人保護的角度出發。

        數位資產發行的監管模式上，部分國家是採利用既有金融監管規定來因應，例如引用證券及電子儲值監管方式，這一類型採用國家以美國和英國為代表；也有部分國家因為套用既有法規時發生太多解釋不確定性，因此制定特別規範來管理，包括泰國、馬來西亞和歐盟則都屬此類型。在中國則是全面禁止數位資產發行，所以就不會有法遵問題。

        數位資產的交易層面監管則是監管者最關切的議題，包括像是詐欺、操縱市場、內線交易等，這些都可造成數位資產交易市場不健全，並造成投資者損失，也有機會形成政治壓力，國內近期也有國會議員開始關注這類議題。這一類的監管模式也是區分為適用用、既有法治及另訂特別規範兩種，前者如直接套用證券交易或期貨監管法制，後者則例如有歐盟針對非證券性質數位資產設有操縱市場、內線交易等規定。

        在業者監管部分，這類型的對象例如交易平臺和錢包業者等，監管模式也是有回歸既有法規的做法，依據交易商品的屬性來套用相關法規。國際間也開始出現新的客戶資產監管規定、交易平臺的監管規定。美國紐約州是第一個針對託管客戶資產的業者發行牌照，陸陸續續日本與新加坡也開始有類似監管方式。

        整體來看，國際金融監管模式已是百花爭鳴狀態，臺灣則無論在發行、交易層面或業者監管方面，都採取以不變應萬變的模式，目前監管方面相當有限。楊教授進一步從短、中長期提出未來臺灣發展上可思考的方向。在短期面，他建議可鬆綁證券性質數位資產的嚴格規範並擴大適用範圍，另也可針對穩定幣發行引入特別匯兌規定，而穩定幣監管也是大勢所趨。臺灣在交易面監管相對寬鬆，可能也是一種隱憂，快速解法是，正確適用期貨交易法規定更廣泛範圍數位資產的現貨交易型態進行交易監管，此可透過法令解釋方式進行而不需要修法；業者監管中針對數位資產期貨業者也可比照辦理，來加強執法。長遠來看建議以設立專法的方式來進行，針對包括發行申請、反詐欺以及客戶資產託管保護，以及交易市場健全等建立規範。

        座談主持人洪副教授反饋，臺灣在STO方面看似需要監管鬆綁，但反而在整體數位資產監管上反而比較寬鬆，此現象是臺灣比較有趣的發展。

李秉錡 檢察官（新北地檢署）

        新北地檢署的李秉錡檢察官從犯罪偵防角度來看數位資產，並應用數個不同情境來具體說明包括虛擬貨幣之非託管錢包、虛擬貨幣之智能合約濫用、虛擬貨幣之NFT濫用的發生樣貌，以及可能涉及違法部分。目前虛擬貨幣確實需要管制，不過目前「虛擬通貨平臺及交易業務事業防制洗錢及打擊資恐辦法」中，限制管制對象為在國內設立登記者，位於臺灣落地以及數量龐大的自然人幣商則未納管。

        李檢察官也直言，監管虛擬貨幣並不容易執行，尤其在主管機關沒有額外資源，加上業者根本不在臺灣落地；即便所有業者都在國內設立公司，因為這些業者的數量過多，金管會也沒有足夠的人力配置與能量來進行檢查。他也建議應全面納管虛擬資產業者，並由虛擬產業洗錢防制主管機關訂定子法要求業者出具聲明書備查，並公告名單；也可參考第三方支付模式，要求這些業者依在台流通金額到達某一個特定額度後，就應在台設立公司，再由金管會接手實質監管，明定經營條件，實質審查內稽內控制度與會計制度等。

Eugene Lim (Head of Private Wealth, Matrixport) 簡報下載

        來自於加密金融服務產業界的Eugene Lim 首先引用拜登行政命令中提到的一個大原則：same business, same risks, same rules。他以自己的公司為例說明，為了要在不同國家提供服務，必須要向不同的國家依不同的監管規定，申請不同的執照。他強調數位資產的多樣化，並也看好臺灣的資產管理潛力。從其自身在不同國家產業的經驗中觀察到，因為台灣的金融監管制度，許多由台灣人想出來的創新數位金融商品，不容易在台灣境內上市，反而出現在境外，而台灣的投資者也多在海外進行投資。業者的期待在數位資產領域，可考慮不繼續使用傳統監管模式，而台灣也有機會可透過數位資產結合其金融與科技優勢進一步發展；舉例來說，臺積電的客戶中也包括挖礦晶片業者。他也建議國內的弱數位貨幣可更開放，讓臺灣投資業者能有第三種的選擇。

        座談主持人洪副教授反饋，台灣客戶需要的特殊、高端結構性商品，反而要在台灣海外的金融專家設計管理並取得，換言之，台灣的需求必須得在台灣以外市場才能滿足，這是首次聽聞有趣的發現。如果這些商品能回到台灣市場，讓台灣客戶取得，會更豐富化國內的新興金融市場。

提問與回應

Q1.美國拜登的數位資產政策發布後，對美臺關係是否會產生特殊影響？

        楊副教授認為影響不大，因為美國的立法推動是建立在相關監理機構分散在各州、中央政府的背景條件下，而臺灣只有一個金融主管機關，和美國需要透過立法來解決，是不一樣的情境。但是美國的數位資產有關證券及穩定幣的監管方式，甚至在洗錢防制面等的做法是對台灣有參考價值的。李檢察官也補充，我國在洗錢防制的立法方面多參考歐洲、新加坡作法。美國在此的改變不會影響臺灣太多。

Q2.請問拜登行政命令的發布對新加坡的影響為何？

        來自新加坡的Eugene表示，從拜登政策提到的6大目標都是以美國自己為主體，但因為美國有美元，還是有機會影響到其他國家。新加坡沒有受美國行政命令的影響，而新加坡在法規面上也走得更前線。但他提及一個台灣可注意的矛盾點，主要起因美國2017年的「稅務用途金融帳戶資訊自動交換準則」（CRS），若未來數位資產也被納入到需要申報所得稅，臺灣在CRS尚未與任何國家簽署，可能會形成漏洞讓惡意行為者有機會利用。

Q3.面對數位資產趨勢，台灣在法規面應強化之建議？

        楊副教授引用Eugene經驗提到，臺灣業者沒有對應的數位資產業務的牌照可以取得，這也導致管控上的問題，而這些問題無法靠洗錢防制規定來處理。探究無照可取的原因，國內金融業務種類相對少，牌照取得上原本就不容易，包括資本額門檻（例如信託牌照取得的資本額為20億），或者經營上的限制也相對保守（例如儲值業者即使資本額要求較低但規範儲值上限為10萬），也會影響業者取得牌照的意願。

        李檢察官也認為，目前沒有牌照是這些虛擬資產業者的痛點，金管會也排斥將虛擬資產業者視為金融業者。在金管會管制重心以消費者保護為主的前提下，或可先限縮在某個範圍內讓金管開始進行相關的監管。

Q4.中央銀行在數位資產方面可扮演角色為何？

        楊副教授表示，央行主要處理貨幣政策，目前臺灣央行也正在開發與實驗自己的央行數位貨幣，不過大規模應用的狀況在短期間內可能不會發生。他也認為因為穩定幣越來越接近被當作是支付工具來使用，會是央行未來可能會需要處理的對象。

        李檢察官認為，國內的線上交易非常普及，支付方式也很多元，但對消費者或店家而言，這些支付方式的額外手續費都是負擔。如果是由央行所擔保發行的數位貨幣，看似為最純粹的支付工具，但是也要注意隱私的問題。

        Eugene提到新加坡本身是成為亞洲的資產管理中心為目標，針對數位資產也是持相同態度，也因此業者在新加坡取得數位資產管理牌照也相對靈活與開放，不過新加坡的監管局也屬保守，包括前今年6月歷經幾家業者出包後，新加坡監管局也開始展開調查。

Q5.數位發展部在數位資產推動尚可扮演的角色。

        楊副教授認為，數位資產監未來應還是以金管會為主，數位發展部可針對沒有金融性質的虛擬通貨，例如消費者保護面向的基礎法治建立，作為金融監管以外的行政或其他監管角色，不過數位發展部不見得對此議題會有興趣。