本文選題：金融消費(fèi) + 金融消費(fèi)者��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著金融市場(chǎng)的拓展和金融創(chuàng)新的不斷發(fā)展,金融商品的種類得到極大的豐富,其結(jié)構(gòu)也日益復(fù)雜。在巨大的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)壓力和“多賣多掙”的利益驅(qū)動(dòng)下,金融機(jī)構(gòu)為贏得競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì),可能會(huì)對(duì)所提供的金融商品進(jìn)行誤導(dǎo)性宣傳和侵犯性勸誘。與此同時(shí),由于專業(yè)知識(shí)和信息能力的局限性,金融消費(fèi)者高度依賴于金融機(jī)構(gòu)的推介勸誘而購(gòu)買金融商品,使得金融市場(chǎng)上涌現(xiàn)出大量的消費(fèi)者受損事件。然而,對(duì)于此類消費(fèi)糾紛,法院通常簡(jiǎn)單地以金融消費(fèi)者在有關(guān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)說(shuō)明文件上簽字表達(dá)了其真實(shí)意志為由判決消費(fèi)者敗訴,使得金融消費(fèi)者的合法權(quán)益得不到應(yīng)有的保護(hù)。有鑒于此,本文在分析金融消費(fèi)活動(dòng)特殊性的基礎(chǔ)上,對(duì)金融機(jī)構(gòu)不當(dāng)勸誘行為的主體、客體、表現(xiàn)形式、主觀要件等展開(kāi)研究,并通過(guò)對(duì)誤導(dǎo)性勸誘行為特殊侵權(quán)責(zé)任和侵犯性勸誘行為撤回權(quán)制度的梳理,為金融消費(fèi)者保護(hù)提供可行的建議。本文除導(dǎo)論和結(jié)語(yǔ)外,分為3部分:第一部分——從金融消費(fèi)的特殊性看不當(dāng)勸誘行為認(rèn)定和處理的取向。金融消費(fèi)活動(dòng)具有不同于傳統(tǒng)消費(fèi)的特殊屬性。金融交易嚴(yán)重的信息不對(duì)稱性、金融消費(fèi)者認(rèn)識(shí)的局限性以及銷售方式突出的勸誘性特征,將本就處于弱勢(shì)地位的金融消費(fèi)者推至更加不利的境地。因此,應(yīng)當(dāng)在金融商品銷售階段秉持傾斜保護(hù)金融消費(fèi)者的理念,加重金融機(jī)構(gòu)的法定義務(wù)和責(zé)任。第二部分——金融消費(fèi)領(lǐng)域中不當(dāng)勸誘行為的認(rèn)定。金融機(jī)構(gòu)的不當(dāng)勸誘行為扭曲了交易的公平性和公正性,法律應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)此作出規(guī)制。但是,法律的過(guò)度管制又可能損及金融市場(chǎng)的效率。本部分通過(guò)對(duì)不當(dāng)勸誘行為的主體范圍、客體范圍、表現(xiàn)形式、主觀要件等進(jìn)行探討,力圖尋求在金融消費(fèi)者保護(hù)與市場(chǎng)效率之間實(shí)現(xiàn)平衡的思路。此外,根據(jù)不當(dāng)勸誘行為的特點(diǎn),本部分對(duì)不當(dāng)勸誘行為進(jìn)行了類型化劃分,將其分為誤導(dǎo)性勸誘行為和侵犯性勸誘行為。第三部分——金融消費(fèi)領(lǐng)域中不當(dāng)勸誘行為的處理。對(duì)于金融機(jī)構(gòu)的誤導(dǎo)性勸誘行為,我國(guó)民事責(zé)任請(qǐng)求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)的不明確,使得司法實(shí)踐中金融消費(fèi)者請(qǐng)求民事救濟(jì)的勝訴率極低,宜將其納入特殊立法的范疇,訂明金融機(jī)構(gòu)的誤導(dǎo)性勸誘行為構(gòu)成特殊侵權(quán)行為,對(duì)造成金融消費(fèi)者權(quán)益損害的應(yīng)按照法律規(guī)定承擔(dān)損害賠償責(zé)任,并就證明責(zé)任的分配予以明確。而對(duì)于侵犯性勸誘行為,由于金融機(jī)構(gòu)的這種勸誘方式可能會(huì)對(duì)金融消費(fèi)者的意思形成過(guò)程施加不當(dāng)影響,使其在誤認(rèn)或困惑的情形下作出不利的交易決定,因此,理想的方式是賦予金融消費(fèi)者撤回權(quán),使其在合同締結(jié)之后可以再次進(jìn)行理性選擇。
[Abstract]:With the development of financial market and financial innovation, the types of financial commodities are greatly enriched and its structure is becoming more and more complex.In order to win the competitive advantage, financial institutions may give misleading publicity and aggressive persuasion to the financial commodities provided under the huge competitive pressure and the profit driven by "more selling and more earning".At the same time, due to the limitations of professional knowledge and information ability, financial consumers rely heavily on the financial institutions to recommend and persuade them to buy financial commodities, which makes a large number of consumer damage incidents emerge in the financial market.However, for this kind of consumer dispute, the court usually decides that the financial consumer's legal rights and interests can not be protected by simply using the financial consumer's signature on the risk statement document to express his true will.In view of this, based on the analysis of the particularity of financial consumption activities, this paper studies the subject, object, manifestation and subjective elements of improper persuasion of financial institutions.By combing the system of special tort liability of misleading persuasion and retractive right of infringing persuasion, it provides feasible suggestions for financial consumer protection.In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper is divided into three parts: the first part is the orientation of the identification and treatment of improper persuasion from the particularity of financial consumption.The financial consumption activity has the special attribute which is different from the traditional consumption.The serious information asymmetry of financial transactions, the limitation of financial consumers' cognition and the persuasive characteristics of sales methods push the financial consumers who are already in a weak position to a more disadvantageous position.Therefore, we should uphold the idea of protecting financial consumers in the stage of selling financial commodities, and increase the legal obligations and responsibilities of financial institutions.The second part-the identification of improper persuasion in the field of financial consumption.The unfair persuasion of financial institutions distorts the fairness and fairness of transactions, which should be regulated by law.However, excessive regulation of the law may impair the efficiency of financial markets.This part explores the subject scope, object scope, expression form and subjective elements of improper persuasion, and tries to find a way to achieve balance between financial consumer protection and market efficiency.In addition, according to the characteristics of improper persuasion, this part classifies improper persuasion into misleading persuasion and aggressive persuasion.The third part-the handling of improper persuasion in the field of financial consumption.For the misleading persuasion of financial institutions, the unclear basis of civil liability claims in our country makes the successful rate of financial consumers requesting civil relief extremely low in judicial practice, so it is appropriate to bring it into the category of special legislation.It is stipulated that the misleading persuasion of financial institutions constitutes a special tort and that those who cause damage to the rights and interests of financial consumers should bear the liability for damages in accordance with the law and make clear the distribution of the burden of proof.In the case of aggressive persuasion, because financial institutions may exert undue influence on the process of meaning formation of financial consumers, they may make adverse transaction decisions in case of misunderstanding or confusion.The ideal way is to give financial consumers the right to withdraw, so that they can make rational choices again after the contract is concluded.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.8

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 高達(dá);;論我國(guó)表決權(quán)委托勸誘行為制度的構(gòu)建[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年17期

2 范黎紅;;美國(guó)聯(lián)邦證券法對(duì)“征集委托書(shū)”的界定及借鑒[J];國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)刊;2004年01期

3 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 鄢琴;論金融消費(fèi)領(lǐng)域中不當(dāng)勸誘行為的認(rèn)定和處理[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：1741629