Suchergebnisse

Abstract The study sought to present the case for strategic regulation in the Fintech Sector, specifically in digital credit, with reference to Kenya. This was based on the concern that the proposed regulation on Fintech Credit by the Kenyan Parliament and the Government of Kenya does not factor in the sustainability aspects of Fintech Credit businesses. The study is anchored on the Public Interest Theory, the Private Interest Theory, and the Economic Theory of Regulation. The study adopted desk research, which depended on the review and examination of primary data sources such as legislation, government policy documents, acts of parliament, and reports. The study sought to achieve its objectives by evaluating the current laws and regulations affecting mobile lending in Kenya. It then relied on a comparison with two jurisdictions, specifically India and USA, where one has an existing mobile lending regulatory framework, and the other has a general regulatory framework respectively. It was established that the proposed regulations have a bias toward consumer protection and do not focus on business sustainability. The study, therefore, concluded that one single regulatory framework or laws will be insufficient for a sector where the laws in place will always be one step behind innovation in Fintech credit, and observed the need for a strategic approach to the regulation of Fintech credit in Kenya. It was recommended that, Fintech credit regulation in Kenya ought to incorporate a degree of flexibility. This flexibility is envisaged by Regtech, which takes care of new product-specific regulations. Secondly, regulators in Kenya should engage in Fintech Credit promotion by creating regulatory sandboxes. Sandboxes allow innovators to test their concepts in a deregulated environment that the rest of the market does not enjoy.

Around the world, regulators and policymakers are working to support the development of financial technology (FinTech) ecosystems. As one example, over 50 jurisdictions have now established or announced "financial regulatory sandboxes". Others have announced or established "innovation hubs", sometimes incorporating a regulatory sandbox as one element. This article argues that innovation hubs provide all the benefits that the policy discussion associates with regulatory sandboxes, while avoiding most downsides of regulatory sandboxes, and that many benefits typically attributed to sandboxes are the result of inconsistent terminology, and actually accrue from the work of innovation hubs. The paper presents, as the first contribution of its kind, data on regulatory sandboxes and innovation hubs and argues that the data so far available on sandboxes does not justify the statement that regulatory sandboxes are the most effective approach to building FinTech ecosystems. Given that regulatory sandboxes require significant financial contributions, sometimes new legislation, and intense regulatory risk management, and that sandboxes do not work as well on a stand-alone basis (i.e. without an innovation hub), while innovation hubs alone can provide more significant benefits in supporting the development of a FinTech ecosystem, regulators should focus their resources on developing effective innovation hubs, including in appropriate cases a sandbox as one possible element.

AbstractFramework:It is well known that the financial technology (Fintech) industry has great potential not only to transform the financial system, but also to build an equitable and sustainable society. In effect, if this technology is applied in the right way, it could be used to overcome the social and economic gaps that exist worldwide.Justification:However, until now, the specific legal regimes (RegTech) that have been established for Fintech have, in addition to the general lack of confidence in new technologies, made its implementation more difficult. Nevertheless, in order to consolidate Fintech, it is necessary to design suitable regulation to transform these new technologies into ordinary instruments of our financial system.Objective:Therefore, in order to promote an appropriate RegTech that allows for the progress of Fintech, it is necessary to analyse the legal problems that restrict their expansion by using an analytical methodology and a bibliographic compilation of legal resolutions.Main conclusion:Legal personal data protection is the main obstacle that must be overcome by paying attention to the guarantees inherent to this fundamental right. In this way, if the legal system is to be ready for the Digital Revolution, society must not be worried about either the loss of rights or increases in inequalities.

Abstract

828
The use of digital platforms in the financial sector requires automated processes in order to collect the large volumes of data which will allow firms to create a shared understanding around rules through technological applications. The UK Financial Conduct Authority launched innovation programmes, i. e. a regulatory sandbox, to assess technologies and expedite the delivery of fintech products. This initiative has been followed by the European Digital Finance Package, which introduced the Pilot Regime for market infrastructure based on distributed ledger technology. Albeit a laudable initiative, the EU sandbox model may face obstacles on account of the different approaches taken by Member States in relieving regulatory requirements which can create a perverse incentive to circumvent prudential rules in the context of risk assessment. This article examines the impact of sandboxes on the operation of digital platforms and considers the extent to which decision-making processes are amenable to digital treatment, and what will be the implications for the quality of regulation and the exercise of judgement by the supervisory authority. It argues that the application of regulatory sandboxes can promote more effective compliance processes, while ensuring transparency and accuracy of enforcement actions.
829

Umschlag Seite 1 -- Titelei -- Vorwort -- Inhaltsübersicht -- Inhaltsverzeichnis -- Teil I: Grundlagen -- A. Grundsätzliche Fragestellungen und Grundbegriffe -- I. Fintech - Regtech - Insurtech -- II. Verortung innerhalb der Kreditwirtschaft -- III. Disintermediation -- IV. Unbundling und Plattformökonomie -- B. Fintech - traditionelle Banken im Strukturwandel - Die Digitalisierung als Glücksfall für die Branche begreifen -- Teil II: Regulatorische Aspekte -- A. Bankenaufsichtsrechtliche Anforderungen an FinTech-Unternehmen -- I. Einführung -- II. Nicht zulassungspflichtige /nicht regulierte Bereiche -- III. Zulassungspflichtige / regulierte Tatbestände -- IV. Regulatorische Anforderungen an zulassungspflichtige FinTech-Unternehmen -- V. FinTech-spezifische Risiken -- VI. Ausblick: Brauchen wir einen neuen Regulierungsansatz? -- B. Kreditplattformen und Crowdfunding -- I. Einführng -- II. Spielarten des Crowdfunding -- III. Regulatorische Anforderungen an das Crowdfunding -- IV. Zusammenfassung -- C. Zahlungsverkehr -- I. Einführung -- II. Erlaubnistatbestände nach dem Zahlungsdiensteaufsichtsgesetz (ZAG) -- III. Grundzüge der Aufsicht -- D. "Lizenzleihe" und Robo-Advice -- I. Robo-Advice ist im Kommen -- II. Robo-Advice-Erscheinungsformen -- III. Formen der Zusammenarbeit unregulierter FinTech-Unternehmen mit Kredit- und Finanzdienstleistungsinstituten -- IV. Rechtliche Anforderungen, wenn Institute Prozesse auslagern -- V. Fazit -- E. Das Regime der Regulatory Sandbox in Großbritannien: Entwicklung und Zukunftsperspektiven -- I. Einleitung -- II. Die Ziele des Project Innovate der FCA, sein Innovation Hub und der Weg zur Sandbox der FCA -- III. Wie funktioniert die Sandbox? -- IV. Was war das Ergebnis des "Lessons Learned Report" der FCA vom Oktober 2017? -- V. Was hat die FCA nun in Zukunft mit der Sandbox in Großbritannien und im Ausland vor?.