English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 94967/125512 (76%)
Visitors : 30678530      Online Users : 488
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/114417


    Title: 零售市場投資產品之法律糾紛、訴訟風險及投資人保護——臺灣有關連動債及共同基金訴訟之實證研究
    Legal Risk and Investor Protection for Retail Investment Products: An Empirical Study of Lawsuits Regarding Mutual Funds and Structured Notes in Taiwan
    Authors: 陳肇鴻
    Chen, Christopher Chao-Hung
    Keywords: 實證研究;法律風險;訴訟風險;投資糾紛;共同基金;連動債;信託;銀行;金融消費者保護法
    Empirical Study;Legal Risk;Investment Disputes;Retail Investment Products;Mutual Fund;Structured Note;Trust, Bank;Financial Consumer Protection
    Date: 2015-06
    Issue Date: 2017-11-07 10:43:34 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本文共研究自二○○○年以後至二○一二年年底前,有關共同基金及連動債之訴訟共322件,並分析訴訟最終結果與投資人特質、主要爭點及法律主張間的關係,本文主要發現如下:首先,投資人之勝訴率不高,此代表銀行所面臨的法律責任風險相當低;其次,就連動債糾紛,向訴訟外紛爭解決機制尋求救濟未必較有利;其三,由於資訊有限,本文尚無法證明法院對具若干特質的投資人就較有利;其四,除主張契約未成立外,原告勝訴率未因主張不同爭點而有明顯差異,但規範上應就銀行銷售產品後之義務方面作進一步澄清;其五,本文未發現若原告舉出特定的請求權基礎或訴訟策略,和訴訟結果間有統計上顯著的關係,亦無證據證明引用多個法律依據即可增加投資人勝訴的機會。
    This study analyses the results of 322 lawsuits regarding retail mutual funds and structured notes in Taiwan between 2000 and 2012 and their relationship with other factors such as investors' personal characteristics, main arguments and causes of action. This study has the following major findings: (1) the winning rate for investors was quite low, meaning that banks face low legal risk from inappropriately selling claims; (2) investors were not better off for having filed a complaint with the Banker's Association; (3) we have not proved that the courts showed preference for investors with certain personal traits due to the limited information available; (4) a plaintiff's winning rate does not vary much from one argument to another, except for arguing formation of contract, but our research shows that more might have to be done to clarify the post-contractual responsibilities of banks; (5) there is also no proof to indicate that certain causes of action or litigation strategies would help investors in winning a judgment and we have not proved that filing more causes of action would help to increase a plaintiff’s chance of winning. Our findings urge regulators and legislators to reconsider regulatory policies for investor protection as well as dispute resolution for financial consumers in the future to offer more complete protection of financial consumers.
    Relation: 政大法學評論, 141, 109-196
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: http://dx.doi.org/10.3966/102398202015060141003
    DOI: 10.3966/102398202015060141003
    Appears in Collections:[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    141-3.pdf2127KbAdobe PDF148View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback