金融科技(Financial Technology, FinTech)創新了金融業的經營模式。除了不斷更新金融體系，更升級為平臺架構，結合創新網路經營模式；並持續改善創造利潤及業績，使企業能在瞬息萬變的數位時代，掌握「贏」的契機。 同為華人文化的社會，台灣與香港的金融產業發展的基礎不同，在面臨國內及國際間金融科技與營運管理的變局時，顯現出台港在金融科技產業的位階有差異。香港這兩年在FinTech的創新展現其經營的潛力，可否給步伐緩慢的台灣提供參考。本文在概略敘述金融科技領域相關內涵之外，分析台灣金融科技創新時可能面臨的挑戰。具體的研究問題與目的有二，台港金融科技經營發展模式的差異與台港兩地發展金融科技創新策略的比較。 本研究以文獻收集分析為主要研究方法，敘述兩地金融及資訊科技的背景，並對金融科技的現況加以比較分析。從金融科技投資成功的要素，以及台港推展FinTech策略及初創公司的成果，比較並分析其管理監督體系、發展之重心以及平臺經濟營運實務，剖析投資招募有何值得借鏡之處。台港兩地的發展也受到國際的影響造成投資策略與風險考量產生差異。台灣明顯重視資訊安全，並將之提高到中央總統府層級，香港則以商務發展為重點。數十年來台灣資訊科技創新能量雖較香港為優，然而金融系統保守是其缺點；執政機構及相關業者只要能掌握金融科技的精要，在風險可控的前提下，開啟一個全新的大門，讓金融業、科技業、服務業、農業等都能投入，結合不同專業領域的技術、思維、精神與傳統金融業結合，就可能有創新的金融科技服務商品。 建議擷取香港對國際開大門的成功經驗，建立能與各金融中心接軌的金融科技體系，並參考香港吸收大陸創新專案進入監理沙盒驗證的快速發展做法，嘗試兩岸產業融合發展的新商機與新思路路線，發揮彼此的強項，以擴增金融科技創新產品的利基。讓創新驗證完成的業者能掌握創業契機，給台灣在繼資訊工業之後，再一次站上全球產業新浪頭的機會。 / The business model of financial industry has been innovated by financial Technology (FinTech). In addition, the financial system is also up-to-date and platform architecture is upgrading provided as an end-to-end process via the Internet. These newly developed financial services combine with innovative business models and continuously improve the profitability and performance so that enterprises may grasp the opportunities of “win” in a rapidly changing digital era. With similar Chinese culture, the bases of financial industry in Taiwan and Hong Kong are different. Facing the changing situation of FinTech and the operation at domestic and international, there are differences of Hong Kong and Taiwan in the FinTech level. These two years, the innovation in Hong Kong has exhibited their potential at FinTech, can this provide a reference for the slow developing Taiwan? In this paper, we focus the description of current situations and analyze the challenges of FinTech innovation to Taiwan. There are two aims for this research, a comparison in the modes of operation, and the innovation strategies of FinTech between Taiwan and Hong Kong. We collected literatures about FinTech especially in these two places as a main research method, compareing the status of FinTech. We also analyzed the successful elements of investment in strategies and financial startups, and illustrated the achievements of promotion. The management and supervision system of promotion in FinTech are compared also, focused on the platform economic operation. From the information above, it is worth for learning from investment offerings. We found the influences from international FinTech also caused differences in the investment strategy and risk considerations. Taiwan emphasizes information security and raises it to the level of the presidential management. Hong Kong focuses on business development. Although IT innovation in Taiwan is superior to Hong Kong for decades, the conservative financial system is its own shortcomings. As long as the governing agency and related industry master the essentials of FinTech and open a whole new door under the control of risk, let financial industry, science and technology industry, service industry and even agriculture be invested. Combining different fields of specialists with the traditional financial industry, innovative FinTech services may be constructed. It suggestes that Taiwan should take the successful experience of Hongkong, opening up to the outside world and set up a FinTech system that can connect to other international financial centers. A new opportunity for Taiwan will be expand the niche of FinTech innovation products. Those who have completed the verification of innovation in Sandbox can seize the opportunity. Taiwan may also step onto the global industrialized wave of FinTech after the information industry. Keywords: FinTech, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Investment Strategy, FSC, Supervision Sandbox

金融科技在近年來已成為企業界與學術界所討論的顯學，但如何有效兼顧監理、法令遵循與促進產業發展，並因應創新商業模式，設計出法規與監理措施，已成為一道難題。基於上述背景，監理沙盒的概念與制度應運而生。我國版的金融監理沙盒，已於2018年1月31日公布。然而，除了金融科技創新，其他產業同樣有創新的必要，在面臨既有法規的限制，同樣有所掣肘。金融科技以外的領域，是否有類似「監理沙盒」的機制，在不分產業別的狀況下，應用在創新的實驗？日本在2014年1月20日起施行的「產業競爭力強化法」，用於創新技術或服務的「企業實證特例制度」及「灰色地帶消除制度」兩項機制，即為不限金融科技領域，適用於各個產業的沙盒制度。 本研究透過檢視日本產業競爭力強化法，深究其內容及機制的優缺點，與推行實績及具體的兩個個案後，據以反思我國是否可透過參考「灰色地帶消除制度」、「企業實證特例制度」的運作，與各產業內的潛在創新者更緊密合作，以有利於未來當主管機關面臨創新與法規的衝撞時，掌握對於各產業的影響。回歸我國法制，本研究針對「金融科技發展與創新實驗條例草案」，包括立法目的、概要，條例中的申請及審查、監督及管理，及實驗期間法令之排除適用及法律責任豁免等議題進行研析，並針對日本推動新事業活動特例措施，與我國金融科技發展與創新實驗條例，進行比較。同時亦將監理沙盒模擬演練的過程中，針對演練的架構、步驟、實際狀況、回饋與心得，提出歸納成果，並針對業者與主管機關進行協商與溝通的階段，歸納出具有邏輯性與合理性的執行步驟與方法論，做為當業者在準備階段與主管機關往返溝通與提案時的參考。 本研究認為，當創新與科技在與金融結合時，創新服務與法規監管的本質不同，所造成的緊張與衝突在所難免，也因此更應該體認到數位時代下主管機關對於法規調適與鬆綁之必要性。在臚列我國於發展第三方支付立法的經驗作為前車之鑑，及剖析日本產業競爭強化法的制度與實績作為他山之石後，本研究認為新創事業無論在籌備階段、實驗階段、營運階段，對於法規的特例需求的確不同於一般事業。因此政府應秉持以下三項原則予以協助：(一)法規對新創企業應更友善且主動輔導、(二)抱持產業永續發展的思維看待新創產業、(三)消費者權益維護與企業營運必須兼顧。 本研究的另一研究結果為，經過個案模擬演練的操作後，歸納並提出七個執行步驟，並建議業者可針對此七個步驟進行腦力激盪與預先演練模擬，在有限的時間內以最高的效率備齊相關文件，以減少審核等待期。最後，本研究認為，業者與主管機關在議題協商時須充分考量有關於創新、業務、消保、法遵等四個面向的議題，且以公私協力的前提下，隨時調整並良性溝通。而主管機關更應加速金融科技的法規革新速度，並適度鬆綁不適用的法規，創造一個對於新創產業相對友善的法規環境，協助新創業者在業務上的發展，使我國能在金融科技戰場上決勝。 / In recent years, financial technology, aka FinTech, has become a significant study discussed by industries and academics. However, how to effectively manage supervisory, compliance with laws and promote industrial development, and how to design regulatory and supervisory measures in response to innovative business models have become a big challenge. Based on the abovementioned facts, the concept of Regulatory Sandbox came into being. Taiwan’s Act on Financial Technology Innovations and Experiments was released on January 31, 2018. Besides FinTech, innovation is equally necessary and indispensable for other industries that also restrained by the limitations of the existing laws and regulations. Are there any mechanisms similar with Regulatory Sandbox for those innovators in other industries? Japan released the Act on Strengthening Industrial Competitiveness on January 20, 2014, which provided two mechanisms, Special System for Corporate Field Tests and System to Remove Gray Zone Areas, for innovative technologies and services for all industries. This essay targets Japan’s and Taiwan’s Acts on Financial Technology Innovations as research objectives, discusses the investigations in both countuires, and provides suggestions for future works. Firstly, this study explores the strengths and weaknesses of its contents and mechanisms by examining Japan’s Act on Strengthening Industrial Competitiveness, and aims at extending the practical angle to Taiwan for the future when facing the conflict between innovation and regulation. Secondly, the essay aims at studying Taiwan’s Act on Financial Technology Innovations and Experiments, and comparing the differences between Japan’s and Taiwan’s Acts. Finally, by observing the results of sandbox simulation exercises, this study elaborates implemental procedures, and logical methodologies as a reference for practitioners to communicate with and submit proposals to the authorities during the preparatory phase. Due to the nature difference of innovation technology and financial supervision, it is considered that the tensions and conflicts are inevitable. Therefore, it is more necessary to amend the existing regulations or even deregulate for start-up. Furthermore, by learning from Taiwan's experience in developing third-party payment legislation and Japan's legislations and actual practices released, this study obtains that deregulation and coordination from government agencies considered highly important to startup operators in every stage. In terms of industry development, further suggestions are concluded in this research for government agencies, including (1) laws and regulations should be more friendly for new start-up, (2) to maintain the sustainable development of start-up industries and operators, and (3)-to achieve balance between the protection of consumer rights and business continuity. After conducting sandbox case simulation exercises, this essay proposes seven procedures for start-up to efficiently go through with internal brainstorming while in preparation stage under a limited time. The last part of the study sets out four topics for practitioners and the competent authorities that are related to innovation, business, consumer protection and law compliance when negotiating the regulatory issues during experiments, hoping to provide a solid methodology beneficial to FinTech practitioners.