我国金融机构惩罚性赔偿责任落空的反思与制度完善  

Reflections on the Fall of Punitive Liability in China’s Financial Institutions and System Improvement

作　　者：阳建勋[1] YANG Jianxun

机构地区：[1]厦门大学法学院

出　　处：《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》2019年第5期156-170,共15页Science of Law：Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law

基　　金：国家社会科学基金一般项目(17BFX094)“P2P网贷信息披露的公私法合作机制研究”

摘　　要：金融机构惩罚性赔偿对于加强金融消费者保护,填补金融机构欺诈行为造成的社会性损害,抑制金融机构的机会主义行为与道德风险,维护金融稳定与金融安全等具有重要的现实意义。不过,该责任在我国实际上落空。落空的背后有深层次的制度原因,如“金融消费者”概念缺失与金融领域的“生活消费”解释困境使得其请求权主体不明;缺乏体现金融业专业性与特殊性的告知义务保障;与金融消费者弱势地位不相称的证明责任使得其难以证明金融机构欺诈;法院审慎控制其负面激励功能。因此,不仅要从请求权主体、金融机构告知义务以及金融机构欺诈的证明责任分配等方面加以完善相应制度,而且要以金融消费者所受损失为基础确定合理的惩罚性赔偿额,抑制其负面激励功能,以在金融领域实现正义的社会秩序。Financial institution’s punitive damages liability is of great practical significance for strengthening the protection of financial consumers, filling the social damages caused by financial institutions’ fraudulent behaviors, curbing financial institutions’ opportunistic behaviors and moral risks, and maintaining financial stability and financial security. However, it has in fact failed in our country. There are deep institutional reasons for the failure. Firstly, the lack of the concept of "financial consumer" and the plight of explanation of "living consumption" in financial field, make its subject of claim unclear. Secondly, there is a lack of information obligation to guarantee it, which reflects the specialty and particularity of financial industry. Thirdly, The disproportional burden of proof on financial consumers makes them difficult to prove the fraud of financial institutions. Lastly, the court prudently controls its negative incentive functions. Therefore, we should not only improve its subject of claims, financial institution’s duty to inform and distribution of the burden of proof of fraud, but also determine reasonable punitive damages on the basis of the losses suffered by financial consumers, curb its negative incentive functions, so as to achieve a just social order in the field of finance.

关 键 词：金融机构 金融消费者 惩罚性赔偿 欺诈 

分 类 号：D923.8[政治法律—民商法学]