金管會非重大裁罰

主管機關的任何動向，一直都備受關注。先前有媒體報導新任主委上任後，保險業狂吃罰單，引來保險局發布澄清稿，強調每一次裁罰都是依法行政，有其必要性，並且經過審慎處理流程。而近日金管會與保險局裁罰公告方式悄悄改變，令人不禁懷疑，是否與日前有媒體報導金管會對保險業開罰過多有關。

過去只要是保險業者因違規、違法遭到裁罰，無論情節輕重，都會在金管會及保險局官網同步公告。不過，自本（10）月開始，金管會與保險局官網悄悄改版，將裁罰案分為「重大裁罰」與「非重大裁罰」兩類。

但進一步檢視公告內容，「重大裁罰」與「非重大裁罰」的標準似乎難以界定。

但檢視保險局至10月26日中午公告的裁罰案件中，8月中有三家保經遭撤照處分、10月中有產險業者因業務疏失遭開罰120萬元並停售商品的處分，卻歸在「非重大裁罰案件」中，至於9月中有五家保經代公司因違反內稽內控與招攬制度等情事而遭罰，卻與元月初某保經遭罰480萬元同時並列於重大裁罰與非重大裁罰案件中。

看到這些，不禁令人疑惑，到底保險局對「重大裁罰」的標準為何？

對此，保險局官員解釋，是否為重大裁罰案不能只看罰鍰總金額，因為公告的裁罰令中可能包括數項違法行為，累積出罰鍰上百萬，但單一違法行為並未超過100萬，因此不能算是重大裁罰。保險局懲處標準並未改變，對重大裁罰的認定標準也維持舊狀。不過保險局於九月下旬決定調整裁罰案的公告方式，只有重大裁罰案，才會公布在金管會本網，至於非重大裁罰案件則僅公告於保險局官網。官員表示，未來會繼續往前回溯，將過去的裁罰公告依此標準，重新歸類。因為官網是委外維護，目前還在調整期間，部分歸類錯誤情形，將會盡快逐一修正。

至於這項調整是否與先前媒體認為保險局動輒開罰有關，官員表示沒有任何關係，只是時間點正好相近。問及明（2021）年金檢重點是否調整，保險局官員表示，每年的金檢重點，會參酌前一年度的結果，並隨著金融市場與監理需求而修正，至於金檢的標準與重點是歸檢查局管轄，等確定後才會對外宣布。

Background
The banking sectors were highly management and supervising by competent authority at all times, therefor the aims of major sanctions were more rigorous for operating related work, improving internal control system and regulation compliance among bank sectors. Although the financial statements are managements responsibility, yet when financial statements are finalized, it must contain an evaluation and communication from a licensed accountant or third party auditor. Because of auditor’s reports that increased the public’s confidence in both the key role for audit processes itself and financial statements of companies. As the new audit reports were applied, licensed accountants faced many challenges and be required to explore more additional information to enhance the transparency of the financial report and non-financial information. Investors and stakeholders will gain important judgment matters of companies through auditor report and KAM report.
Purpose
This study was to explore the correlations in number, type, penalty of sanctions and KAM for banking sectors after major sanctions from Financial Supervisory Commission R. O. C (Taiwan).
Research design and methods
This was a retrospective information review study conducted to evaluate the correlation between administrative sanctions and key audit matters. Thirty-seven banks participated in the study. In the first step, Researcher used a detailed content analysis of professional audit literature to explore the KAM and administrative sanctions from Financial Supervisory Commission R. O. C (Taiwan). Second, logistic regression was used to assess correlations between sanctions and KAM.
Results
The results showed there were no statistically significant differences between banking sectors accepted number, type, penalty of sanctions from Financial Supervisory Commission R. O. C (Taiwan) and total words and items of KAM.
Conclusion
Even the study showed no significance between sanctions and KAM words and items. Banks will need to disclose key and significant transactions that occurred on the audit. All mangers of banks should base on fairness principle to try effort increasing transparency of reporting and to assist the stakeholders and investors with well understanding the audited annual financial statements.