Financial dispute mediation 調解中心是妥協產物 加強監管動力見消退

THE government is consulting the public aboutsetting up a Financial Dispute ResolutionCentre (FDRC) that would help investors andfinancial institutions to come to settlements. Whenthere is such an avenue avenue, they may not have to resort, to litigation, which is costly and time time--consuming. Theproposal has something to recommend it.

The government's consultation paper makes itclear that the FDRC would have no power to deal withregulatory breaches and would deal only withmonetary disputes. Having no regulatory powers, theFDRC would surely be toothless. Financial institutionsin dispute with their customers might regard it as abody that could help them solve their problems. Thegovernment has proposed that the maximum claimableamount be set at $500,000. That shows it has regardmore to financial institutions' circumstances than toinvestors' real needs. Needless to say, the FDRCmight help protect investors' interests, but it isabundantly clear that the policy is on the whole morefavourable to financial institutions.

Where mediation proves unsuccessful, the FDRCmay assist the claimant to bring his case to arbitrationif he so wishes. It is likely that, at this stage, neitherparty to the dispute would budge. The financialinstitution would have a definite advantage because itis financially powerful and has a huge team of capablelawyers at its beck and call call. Can the claimant, who. has neither strength nor resources and may claim$500,000 at most, fight the financial institution?Mediation can be fair and reasonable. However, thereis such a huge disparity in strength between a smallinvestor and a financial institution that, if they go toarbitration, the small investor cannot but be at adisadvantage. This is the biggest question about theFDRC idea.

We gather that the government intended at firstthat Hong Kong set up a Financial OmbudsmanService and appoint a Financial Ombudsman as theUK had done. The UK's Financial Ombudsman wieldsstatutory powers and has expertise. He can makeprofessional judgments in mediating disputes. The UKsystem, which was put in place ten years ago, isconsidered sound and effective. However, it is notknown whether those who would operate the financialmediation scheme the government has proposedwould have much expertise.

In short, if conditions are not ripe or thegovernment does not dare to offend financialinstitutions, its proposal to set up an FDRC will seemacceptable. However, the government proposes thatthe maximum claimable amount be $500,000, which issmaller than Australia's (280,000 Australian dollars) orthe UK's (100,000 pounds). (There is no ceiling onsuch claims in the US.) As Hong Kong calls itself thethird largest international financial centre in the world, itseems petty to allow investors to claim at most$500,000 each. A $2 2--million ceiling would seem moreappropriate. Furthermore, the government must makesure that the FDRC would display professionalism lestit should become a laughingstock. After it has operatedfor three years, the government should have acomprehensive review of the scheme. It should regardthe performance of the UK's Financial OmbudsmanService as a yardstick. If the FDRC does not measureup up, Hong Kong should make preparations for, introducing a scheme similar to the UK system.

調解中心是妥協產物 加強監管動力見消退

2010.02.11明報社評

政府正就設立「金融糾紛調解中心」諮詢意見，根據建議，調解中心可以起到促成投資者與金融機構和解的功能，免卻耗費龐大、曠日持久的法律訴訟，有其可取之處。

諮詢文件清楚列明調解中心「並非監管機構」，「只應處理『金錢糾紛』，而非與『違反監管規定』有關的部分」。沒有監管職能，則調解中心肯定是「無牙老虎」，對於涉及糾紛的金融機構，反而可視之為協助排難解紛的幫手。此外，諮詢文件把申索上限訂在50 萬元，也反映政府較多從金融機構角度考慮，較少顧及投資者的實際需要。當然，調解中心可以為投資者取回應得權益，但是，整體政策取向較向金融機構傾斜，甚為明顯。

另外，諮詢文件建議，調解中心若未能使涉事雙方協議和解，個案就進入調解程序；若調解又失敗，則會進行仲裁。若個案到仲裁這個階段，顯示申索人和金融機構都互不相讓，這樣的話，財雄勢大的金融機構會佔絕對優勢，因為金融機構有大隊法律精英協助營運，申索最多50 萬元的投資者，勢孤力弱，如何與金融機構抗衡？仲裁本屬公平合理程序，但是在小投資者與金融機構力量懸殊、不對稱下進行仲裁，吃虧的肯定是小投資者。此乃調解中心構思最值得斟酌之處。

據知， 政府原本屬意仿效英國的金融申訴服務（Financial Ombudsman Service Service），成立類似），「金融申訴專員」，專員擁有法定權力，有專業知識，在調解過程中可以作出專業判斷。英國的「金融申訴專員」已設立10 年，被認為運作良好和有效，反觀政府建議的調解中心，執行調解的人員是否擁有專業知識，仍屬未知之數。

總之，在條件未成熟、或政府不敢得罪金融機構的情况下，政府擬設立「金融糾紛調解中心」，可以接受，但是申索上限為50 萬元，較澳洲（ 28 萬澳元）、英國（10 萬英鎊）、美國（不設上限），都有不如，以本港自詡為國際第三大金融中心的地位，最多只能申索50 萬元，太過「寒酸」了，增加至200 萬元較為合理，並要確保調解中心的專業性質，以免貽笑大方。另外，調解中心運作33 年後，要全面檢討，其成效應以英國的金融申訴專員為標準，若未能達標，則要有全面仿效英國機制的準備。

GG lossary

aavenue venue //''aavv ??nju:/ nju:/a choice or way of making progress towardssomething.

at somebody's beck and callalways ready to obey somebody's orders.

measure upbe as good or successful as expected orneeded.