数字经济时代跨境金融服务的数据风险及治理路径

Data Risks and Governance Paths of Cross‑Border Financial Services in the Era of Digital Economy

2023年中央金融工作会议将“推进金融高水平开放,确保国家金融和经济安全”“稳步扩大金融领域制度型开放”并列为涉外金融领域的重点工作。然而,在数字经济时代,跨境金融服务衍生出个人金融信息泄露风险、金融机构业务运营风险、金融服务数据垄断风险和国家宏观经济安全风险,对国际数字贸易规则、国内审慎监管机制和国际金融监管规则带来严峻挑战。为防范跨境金融服务的数据风险,本文提出“国际+国内”“贸易+监管”双层复合型治理路径,即国际协同治理跨境金融服务数据风险,明晰跨境金融服务数据的监管原则、硬化跨境金融服务的数据软法规则。同时,中国应积极参与国际数字贸易规则的制定、重塑跨境金融服务数据的监管机制,完善跨境金融服务数据的监管手段,增强中国金融市场制度型开放的法治保障。

In October 2023,the Central Financial Work Conference pointed out,“We must strive to promote high‐level financial opening up and ensure the country’s financial and economic security.We must adhere to both‘bringing in’and‘going out’,steadily expanding institutional opening up in the financial field.”With the development of information technology,the flow of cross‐border data not only improves the efficiency of cross‐border financial services and promotes the globalization of financial markets but also breeds data risks,which pose a threat to international trade and finance rules.With the support of information technology,data risks in cross‐border financial services have presented diverse patterns,including personal financial information leakage risks,financial institution business operation risks,and macro‐financial data monopoly and security risks.The risks above impact traditional service trade rules and emerging digital trade rules.These risks increasingly reveal the fragmentation disadvantages of digital trade rules and undermine the existing governance mechanisms of domestic prudential supervision and international financial supervision.To regulate the data risks of cross‐border financial services,the logical approach of“divide and conquer”of financial services trade governance and international financial supervision should be transformed at the global level into the integrated governance paradigm of“economic trade+supervision”.The first is to promote cooperation in the governance of financial services trade,rely on the WTO framework to negotiate digital trade rules,and focus on procedural rules and cross‐border payment rules.The second is to clarify the principles of financial services data supervision,clarify the supervision model centered on the“hybrid principle”,adopt the rule concept guided by the“dynamic principle”,and build a regulatory power distribution model based on the“autonomy principle”.The third is to harden the“soft law”rules for financial services,set clear standards for regulatory classification and grading,and set“comply or explain”obligations at the implementation level based on regulatory fields and differences between countries.China should actively participate in the discussion of international rules in the field of cross‐border financial services,and then export China’s propositions on preventing cross‐border financial service data risks.In terms of financial supervision,on one hand,China should build a financial data security review mechanism,focus on cross‐border service threats that affect financial institutions’information systems,data,and user accounts,strengthen the extraterritorial law enforcement power for financial supervision,and enhance the crackdown on illegal cross‐border financial services capabilities.On the other hand,China should incorporate fintech companies and digital financial services into the financial prudential regulatory policy system,formulate an important data catalog in the financial field as soon as possible,and increase the application of regulatory technology in areas such as cross‐border financial service data risk warning and monitoring,thus improving the legal and technical governance of data risks in cross‐border financial services.