Latest Publictions
2024 Jul/19
Introduction to Global Financial Dispute Resolution Regimes and Their Domestic Implications
Survey Papers 24-03
PDF
- Research Topic Financial Services Industry
- Page 81
- Summary
- As the sales of complex and high-risk financial products, such as Hong Kong H-index ELS and interest rate-linked DLF, have increased, the amount of damage to financial consumers due to mis-selling has also risen. Despite substantial financial losses suffered by consumers due to mis-selling by financial companies, recovering damages often involves lengthy processes and high legal fees. In response, major countries like the U.S., U.K., and Japan have introduced various alternative dispute resolution systems to reduce the legal costs and time associated with civil litigation and to support quick compensation.
In the U.S., organizations such as the CFPB, FINRA, and AAA provide various forms of financial dispute resolution, including settlement, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. In the United Kingdom, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), an independent non-profit organization, is responsible for resolving financial disputes. The FOS’s conciliation decisions are unilaterally binding, meaning that once a financial consumer accepts a decision, the financial firm must comply. Additionally, the UK’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) has established a system allowing financial consumers to receive compensation from a pre-established fund if they are unable to recover their investments due to mis-selling or poor advice on funds, structured products, etc. In Japan, each financial industry operates a designated dispute resolution organization. For the financial investment industry, FINMAC handles financial complaints and disputes. FINMAC is independent of the Financial Services Agency and mediates disputes between financial consumers and financial companies related to investment products, crypto assets, STOs, and more. FINMAC’s conciliation decisions are conditionally binding, meaning that if a financial consumer accepts a decision, the financial company must comply.
In Korea, financial dispute resolution is managed by the Financial Supervisory Service Dispute Resolution Committee, the Korea Exchange Market Monitoring Committee, the Financial Investment Association Dispute Resolution Committee, and the Consumer Dispute Committee of the Korea Consumer Affairs and Consumer Services Commission. Among these, the Financial Supervisory Service Dispute Resolution Committee plays a significant role in cases involving the incomplete sale of financial investment products. Historically, general financial consumers in Korea have experienced lower compensation rates compared to other major countries, longer compensation times, and lower acceptance of settlement decisions by financial companies. Korea’s financial dispute resolution system is somewhat limited in diversity, operating primarily through dispute mediation. There are many opinions that it needs to be more independent and specialized. Specifically, the Financial Supervisory Service’s Dispute Mediation Committee is inadequately staffed, leading to ineffective dispute resolution. Additionally, the mediation decisions of the FSS are not unilaterally binding, and financial companies often do not accept these decisions. Furthermore, there is no collective dispute settlement system for cases of mis-selling, which limits the ability of many victims to receive appropriate relief.
Therefore, it is necessary to improve the Korean financial dispute resolution system to provide quick compensation to financial consumers and reduce legal costs. First, the independence and expertise of the Financial Supervisory Service’s Dispute Mediation Committee should be enhanced, and its staffing and budget should be expanded to strengthen its practical functions. Second, to improve the effectiveness of the financial dispute resolution system, introducing a Japanese-style limited one-sided binding mechanism should be considered. For one-sided binding to be effective, it is essential to enhance the independence and professionalism of dispute resolution organizations and ensure access to justice. Third, the introduction of a consumer protection relief fund system should be considered in the medium to long term to provide direct relief to ordinary financial consumers in financial disputes. Fourth, the introduction of a collective dispute mediation system should be considered to strengthen the relief available to general financial consumers, including the elderly and financially vulnerable.