CC BY
10Образование. Наука. Научные кадры. 2024. № 1. С. 176—189. Education. Science. Scientific personnel. 2024;(1):176—189.
PUBLIC LEGAL (STATE LEGAL) SCIENCES
Original article УДК 347.51
https://doi.org/10.24412/2073-3305-2024-1-176-189 NIION: 2007-0062-1/24-028
EDN: https://elibrary.ru/MFWDPF MOSURED: 77/27-004-2024-01-228
Problems and challenges of regulation of anonymous fintech
Yaroslava O. Kuchma
Russian Academy of Natural Sciences,
Moscow, Russia, yakuchina@gmail.com
Abstract. Actuality. In the modern world, fintech as an innovative phenomenon is one of the most pressing topics, including in jurisprudence. Questions about the regulation of fintech, both in general and its types, occupy a serious part of modern legal research, both academic and practical.
Article purpose. The research goal is to describe the phenomenon of anonymous fintech and analyze exactly what differences exist in the area of regulation of anonymous fintech and other types of fintech.
Research methods. To develop the concept, the study primarily used a qualitative documentary analysis methodology. A significant part of the documents on fintech regulation is presented in the form of recommendations and expert opinions from representatives of organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Basel Committee and others.
These recommendations are not of the same nature as other documents relating to the financial regulation of the same organizations, and therefore they cannot be considered legislation, even soft law. At the same time, due to significant uncertainty in approaches to fintech regulation, their impact is significant.
At the local level, the variety of sources is even greater. Depending on the financial system of a particular state, they may consist of recommendations, policy documents and letters, legislative acts (general and specific), case law, etc.
Thus, the study explores primary and secondary materials. Since primary documents related to fintech are still controversial on some issues, the main resources selected for this study are based on the idea of technocracy.
Secondary materials are collected to better understand the current situation in fintech regulation, problems, positions and contradictions that may exist in practice. The study also reviews the literature on financial technology regulation.
Author's results. The study aims to analyze existing approaches to the legal assessment of fintech and ways to regulate it as a technology. The study is based on the hypothesis of the need to abandon a fractional multilateral approach to understanding what fintech is and what types it can be divided into. Instead, the author proposes to turn to the classic system of differentiating the characteristics of technology into technological and non-technological, which is the basis for the legal recommendations of UNCITRAL. Based on this, the author proposes to divide fintech into two large categories, each of which requires its own system of legal regulation. Thus, according to the author, a completely new classification of fintech can be formed based on the characteristics of the degree of data identifiabil-ity, on which, in turn, the ability of the regulator to assess the compliance of fintech with the current law will depend.
Results' practical importance. The proposed system of classification of fintech will allow us to move away from the main problem of modern legal regulation of this area — namely, from fragmented regulation based on the resolution of specific conflicts and cases.
The classification will also allow the regulator to proactively assess the possibility of regulatory intervention to require compliance with the law. At the stage of formation of the legal regulation system, it will be possible to determine the extent of the required legislative reform and its depth, as well as the necessary legal instruments.
Keywords: fintech, law, legal regulation, data law, fintech law, financial law
For citation: Kuchina Ya.O. Problems and challenges of regulation of anonymous fintech // Obrazovaniye. Nauka. Nauchnyye kadry = Education. Science. Scientific personnel. 2024;(1):176—189. https://doi.org/10.24412/2073-3305-2024-1-176-189. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/MFWDPF.
ЧАСТНО-ПРАВОВЫЕ(ЦИВИЛИСТИЧЕСКИЕ) НАУКИ
Научная статья
Проблемы и вызовы регулирования анонимного финтеха
Ярослава Олеговна Кучина
Российская академия естественных наук, Москва, Россия, yakuchina@gmail.com
© Кучина Я.О., 2024
Аннотация. Актуальность. В современном мире финтех как инновационное явление — одна из самых актуальных тем, в том числе в юриспруденции. Вопросы регулирования финтеха, как в целом, так и его видов, занимают серьезную часть современных юридических исследований, как академических, так и практических.
Цель статьи. Цель исследования — описать феномен анонимного финтеха и проанализировать существующие различия в области регулирования анонимного финтеха и других видов финтеха.
Методы исследования. Для разработки концепции в исследовании в первую очередь использовалась методология качественного документального анализа. Значительная часть документов по регулированию финтеха представлена в виде рекомендаций и экспертных заключений представителей таких организаций, как Всемирный банк, Международный валютный фонд, Базельский комитет и др.
Эти рекомендации отличаются по своей природе от других документов, касающихся финансового регулирования тех же организаций, поэтому их нельзя считать законодательством, даже мягким правом. В то же время из-за значительной неопределенности в подходах к регулированию финтех-технологий их влияние значительно.
На местном уровне разнообразие источников еще больше. В зависимости от финансовой системы конкретного государства они могут состоять из рекомендаций, программных документов и писем, законодательных актов (общих и специальных), прецедентного права и т.д.
Таким образом, в исследовании анализируются первичные и вторичные материалы. Поскольку первичные документы, относящиеся к финтеху, все еще противоречивы по некоторым вопросам, основные ресурсы, отобранные для этого исследования, основаны на идее технократии.
Вторичные материалы собраны для лучшего понимания текущей ситуации в регулировании финансовых технологий, проблем, позиций и противоречий, которые могут существовать на практике. В исследовании также рассматривается литература по регулированию финансовых технологий.
Результаты исследования. Цель исследования — анализ существующих подходов к правовой оценке финтеха и способов его регулирования как технологии. Исследование основано на гипотезе о необходимости отказа от дробного многостороннего подхода к пониманию того, что такое финтех и на какие виды его можно разделить. Автор предлагает обратиться к классической системе разграничения характеристик технологии на технологические и нетехнологические, которая лежит в основе юридических рекомендаций ЮНСИТРАЛ. Исходя из этого, автор предлагает разделить финтех на две большие категории, каждая из которых требует своей собственной системы правового регулирования. Таким образом, по мнению автора, на основе характеристик степени идентифицируемости данных может быть сформирована совершенно новая классификация финтеха, от которой, в свою очередь, будет зависеть способность регулятора оценивать соответствие финтеха действующему законодательству.
Практическая значимость результатов. Предложенная система классификации финтеха позволит отойти от основной проблемы современного правового регулирования этой сферы, а именно — от фрагментарного регулирования, основанного на разрешении конкретных конфликтов и кейсов.
Классификация также позволит регулирующему органу заблаговременно оценить возможность вмешательства регулирующих органов, чтобы потребовать соблюдения законодательства. На этапе формирования системы правового регулирования можно будет определить масштабы требуемой законодательной реформы и ее глубину, а также необходимые правовые инструменты.
Ключевые слова: финтех, право, правовое регулирование, закон о данных, финтех-право, финансовое право
Для цитирования: Кучина Я.О. Проблемы и вызовы регулирования анонимного финтеха // Образование. Наука. Научные кадры. 2024. № 1. С. 176—189. https://doi.org/10.24412/2073-3305-2024-1-176-189. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/MFWDPF.
Introduction
Fintech is a range of different innovative technologies such as blockchain, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, etc. This diversity makes it difficult to harmonize government policies in the field of fintech, find a balance between these technologies in fintech and innovation markets, ensure sustainable development of the financial sector and promote the economy. Fintech, described as disruptive and innovative, is changing and redesigning the financial sector in completely unpredictable ways.
Some scholars highlight the following reasons for the popularity of fintech compared to traditional banking services:
1) because the regulation of bank credit services has become stricter since the global financial crisis of 2008;
2) since this makes it difficult for MSMEs to access credit, especially in rural areas;
3) due to the banking policy of KYC and AML;
4) due to the difference in regulation of banking services and fintech;
5) and due to differences in costs, fees and penalties;
6) since banking financial services are less flexible or inflexible to social needs and avoid technological developments and advancements;
7) because fintech is open to customization.
The wide range of risks, benefits and effects
associated with the development of fintech is the reason why discussions about it continue. They are also the reasons why the issue of fintech regulation remains somewhat unclear, with different proposals being made by various government bodies, experts and academics around the world.
At the same time, understanding financial technologies, their scope and implications remains an open question for both scholars and practitio-
ners. The study shows that there may be different approaches to legal, expert and academic understandings.
Fintech, as noted by S. Omarova, "changes our understanding of finance: it gradually rebuilds our collective understanding of the financial system in the normative-neutral terms of applied computer science," and that is why it undermines the financial regulatory system (Omarova, 2019). This is a negative effect of the development of fintech associated with risks, which must be taken into account and resolved by regulators globally.
All of this creates a paradox. Legal scholars generally understand fintech as a technology, as they typically define it in terms of the goals and objectives of the IT sector and take an approach common among IT developers. Thus, they focus on the "technical" risks and problems that they see and understand through the law. And less often they turn to the risks emanating from its financial side.
The debate about fintech regulatory issues is extremely broad and varied, with the issues assessed sometimes being very different and varying depending on the specific fintech service or technology. That is why recommendations for solving these problems are contradictory. Criticism of the existing regulatory framework in the field of financial technologies is quite high. This may create the perception that harmonized regulation is not possible and balance is unattainable. And makes the picture of fintech regulation uncertain. At a time when fintech products and services are so popular but the market is still emerging, when fintech is the main interest of investors, such uncertainty is the main reason for both the fear and the research interest it generates. All this explains the research focus of the dissertation and the attempt to find a balance not only in the regulation of financial technology but also in research views and opinions.
Literature review
This section briefly presents the current literature on the legal regulation of financial technologies, including the latest approaches and issues highlighted in this area. A more detailed discussion of the subject matter will be included in subsequent chapters of this text.
The study found that the literature on fintech regulation can be divided into two large parts: literature on fintech, its theories (concept, history, relationship with other phenomena) (Arner et al., 2016; Arner et al., 2017; Brummer, Yadav, 2019; Omarova, 2019) and literature on fintech regulation
(Didenko, 2018; Arner et al., 2017; Omarova, 2020; Faccia et al., 2020). In the second case, the term "fintech" is often not used by the authors at all, which causes certain difficulties when searching by keywords.
After conducting the analysis, we were able to identify the following main trends. First, a significant part of the research read is devoted to answering the question of what fintech is, what technologies it includes, and what (in a general sense) impact it has on the financial sector (Omarova, 2019, Omarova, 2020). Such studies use the term "fintech" and, as a rule, do not distinguish specific types of products and services. These studies can be classified as "financial technology theory" studies.
Next, it is necessary to mention national studies of specific fintech markets and the features of national regulation within a particular country. Such studies are localized to a specific local market, often contain elements of interdisciplinary analysis, and may focus on specific types of fintech (for example, cryptocurrency in China), fintech in a specific country or region (fintech in Africa), as well as aspects of the specific market affected by fintech (e.g. access to credit for women in Indonesia) (Wang et al., 2022; Didenko, 2017; Eltweri, 2020; Suryono et al., 2021).
The third group, the most difficult to generalize and analyze, is research devoted to the regulation of fintech and the analysis of specific practical experience (Lerner, Tufano, 2011; Dniprov et al., 2019; Faccia et al., 2020). The obstacle here is the fact that the regulator rarely uses the term "fintech", preferring the names of its specific types. It is even more difficult to study and analyze court cases in which the term "fintech" is not used at all. That is, unless a court case becomes the object of media interest, it is extremely difficult to detect. And, of course, the volume of work on analyzing the experience of national regulation of certain types of fintech does not allow for their full-text analysis.
It should also be noted that the attention of scientists to fintech goes along with the development and evolution of fintech. There are many studies that provide quantitative research on fintech and its legal issues. There are even research papers devoted to a number of articles on this topic published in leading journals in finance, accounting, law and management. Some authors emphasize that their total number exceeds 6000 (Lu et al., 2020). This analysis is based on the snowball method and keyword evaluation, so the numbers cannot be absolute. However, one preliminary
remark should be made here — most scientific works are focused on the national market, therefore the number of scientific works relating to financial technologies and international regulation is extremely small and is mainly represented by the works of Omarova, Yadav and some experts of the international market, financial organizations (Omarova, 2020; Brummer, Yadav, 2019; Arner et al., 2017). But there are no specific studies on the problem of anonymous fintech, rather than individual types.
Purpose and objectives of the study
The purpose of the study is to substantiate theoretical and methodological principles, as well as methodological techniques and practical recommendations that reveal prospects for the development of a regulatory approach to anonymous fintech.
The need to achieve this goal required solving the following tasks:
■ propose a conceptual approach to fintech, its characteristics, definition and types,
■ substantiate the methodological basis of fintech regulatory systems in the era of digital transformation,
■ assess the existing legal framework in the field of financial technologies,
■ propose regulatory methods and legal regulation methods for assessing and predicting risks associated with fintech,
■ develop a model of anonymous fintech within the existing concept of fintech as a subject,
■ propose a strategy for the development of the regulatory framework on this topic.
Research methodology
To develop the concept, the study primarily used a qualitative documentary analysis methodology. At the same time, the features of fintech regulation of the research object affect this method in the following way.
Firstly, a significant part of the documents on fintech regulation is presented in the form of recommendations and expert opinions from representatives of organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Basel Committee and others.
These recommendations are not of the same nature as other documents relating to the financial regulation of the same organizations, and therefore they cannot be considered legislation, even soft law. At the same time, due to significant uncertainty in approaches to fintech regulation, their impact is significant.
At the local level, the variety of sources is even greater. Depending on the financial system of a particular state, they may consist of recommendations, policy documents and letters, legislative acts (general and specific), case law, etc.
Thus, the study explores primary and secondary materials. Since primary documents related to fintech are still controversial on some issues, the main resources selected for this study are based on the idea of technocracy. Thus, the materials studied primarily include documents from the Financial Stability Board, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), the International Organization of Securities Commissioners (IOSCO), the World Bank, as well as documents from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). as well as acts of EU bodies, etc. The body of legal materials is formed from national legislation in the field of financial technologies and recommendations of institutions implementing regulatory policies in national markets.
Secondary materials are collected to better understand the current situation in fintech regulation, problems, positions and contradictions that may exist in practice. The study analyzes the literature on financial technology regulation. Much of the fintech literature is interdisciplinary, which the analysis shows is a core feature of fintech research in general.
Given the uncertainty and imbalance in the field, the analysis of sources within the study often proceeded from the specific to the general or along the principle of "concentrated circles." The essence of this analysis was to compare scientific research on fintech in relation to a specific state, with a parallel highlighting of the features of fintech regulation in the same state. It should be noted here that the analysis of fintech regulation is carried out using the same system, which is due to the peculiarities of regulation of both fintech itself and lawyers.
The materials analyzed also include government reports, official reports issued by national supervisory boards at the national level, expert articles and opinions, scientific studies and publications related to the topic, policy documents, reports and opinions of fintech industry professionals and legal entities, statistics, collected from banks and other related organizations.
As for case law, there are no precedents that could be understood as case law in the classical sense. Empirical evidence on fintech is based on case studies, some of which include court decisions or legal documents issued by specific regulatory authorities on fintech entities and activities.
Research stages
At the preparation stage, theoretical sources were studied, which made it possible to substantiate the research value of the problem being studied. Then the task was set to develop a scientific and theoretical basis for the proposed research, highlight the main directions and achievements, as well as contradictions. Further work was aimed at comparing theoretical provisions with regulations and regulatory legal policies, as well as with trends in the development of fintech in the market.
In 2019—2023, the results of the study were tested during successive presentations of the results at various scientific conferences and special thematic events, including in Hong Kong SAR and Macau SAR.
Results of the study
The definition of fintech as a phenomenon exists exclusively in the works of scientists, in advisory documents and regulatory policy studies, and is completely absent from legislation. Turning to the analysis of the law on fintech, we can see that it does not know such a term, preferring to it specific names of services or technologies collected under the general concept of "fintech". We can find the term "fintech" in explanatory letters, in speeches by representatives of financial authorities and legislators, but not in the text of regulations. That is, fintech as a technical complex or principle, such as artificial intelligence or cloud technologies, is absent from the law.
Our extensive research into the concept of fintech, where we included a significant number of scientific works, as well as documents from national and international financial institutions and organizations, shows the presence of two established approaches to defining fintech and three approaches to understanding its content.
Analysis shows that they can be divided into academic approach and practical approach. The first is overwhelmingly found in the works of fintech researchers and consists of an attempt to describe fintech as a phenomenon and provide a list of characteristics characterizing it.
The first approach is a first in the truest sense since it was first applied in 1972 (Arner et al., 2017). The definition itself contains two components (Hockett, Omarova, 2022). One of them is knowledge in the field of finance and banking ("banking expertise") or what is now called "fin", and the second is scientific/computing inventions of the time or "tech". As will be seen later, the formula has not changed, and modern definitions also consist of these parts. Most researchers we
know describe fintech as an acronym for a financial function embodied in a technology product.
In 2003, the phenomenon of interest to us was most often called "financial innovation", to separate it from other types of "innovation objects" (Lerner, Trufano, 2011). Financial innovation has been described as an innovation that "creates and then popularizes new financial instruments, as well as new financial technologies, institutions, and markets" (Lerner, Trufano, 2011) Thus, science has developed a classic approach to the descriptive definition of fintech.
The second approach to defining fintech can be called casual or "definition of scope", in which the authors, instead of characteristics, prefer to provide a list of those phenomena that they perceive as components of the concept of fintech. This approach is characteristic of documents, letters, recommendations and expert studies of financial institutions. A description of this type of fintech can be found in the World Bank's 2014 report, Development of E-commerce, Mobile Commerce and Payments Sector in Vietnam, where fintech is defined as a concept that "refers to the non-traditional financial technology sector, covering payments, lending, and a range of business models that more closely integrate finance with real sector business models such as e-commerce".
In the 2022 Global Financial Stability Report of the International Monetary Fund, fintech is defined as:
1) digital banks (neobanks);
2) for a long time existing fintech companies;
3) decentralized finance (DeFi).
The main documents on FinTech released by the IMF are relevant to the activities and position of the World Bank, and by comparing the difference, it can be concluded that the three areas are FinTech according to the objectives of the IMF and the World Bank in the current situation. At the same time, the question arises about the evolution of the term. Changing meaning is normal, or at least it has been in fintech since 1972, but these changes are happening too quickly. The scope of definitions provided by the IMF appears to be consistent with its sectoral interests. Since the IMF is the source of international financial policy that determines the direction of local markets, it may cause some volatile fluctuations and have a devastating impact on the financial technology industry.
We found similar examples in dozens of documents on fintech, published by both the IMF and the World Bank, and other organizations, from international ones, like the Basel Committee, to
national ones. Moreover, the newer the chronological definitions of fintech are, the more they prefer a list as a definition, and in some cases these lists are more technological than legal in content.
That is, fintech is an umbrella term that covers innovative financial solutions provided by IT and, in addition, is often used by start-ups that are providers of these services, it also includes existing financial service providers such as banks and insurance companies (Brummer, Yadav, 2019). This definition allows, along with the previous ones, to identify three other approaches to the definition of fintech — these are positional approaches that allow us to understand exactly what angle the researcher adheres to, what kind of sector he considers the fintech sector.
Fintech as a term is used to describe the following three areas:
1) to describe the application of information technology in finance as a complex area of technological development (wang et al., 2021);
2) as a synonym for the terms "startups" or "innovative financial business models" (Anand, Mantrala, 2019);
3) when authors describe digital services and products in the territory of the financial market (Werbach, 2018).
Thus, according to K. Leong, fintech can include "any innovative ideas that improve financial service processes by offering technological solutions in accordance with various business situations" (Leong, 2018). It is a popular term that describes the "broad universe of financial services enabled by innovative technologies."
That is, as we see, there is no understanding of what fintech is, and the lack of a unified concept is not the main problem. Fintech is a so-called "emerging market", the progress of which does not stop for a second, and research from 2014 is of little use in 2024. But there are still three directions in the literature and practice for understanding fintech — as a technology, as services and products, as business models — and each of these areas has its own separate trends and approaches.
When analyzing the theory and practice of fintech regulation, one can immediately note an interesting fact — despite the presence of a huge number of scientific and practical works on how to build legal policy in this area, the number and pace of research on the topic is not decreasing, but, on the contrary, is only increasing. Of course, the main reason is that fintech is an emerging and constantly transforming market, which in turn leads to the emergence and existence of a number of problems that are important for the regulator.
The first, as we said above, is the problem of defining both what fintech is and its main features that make it possible to distinguish between fintech and non-fintech technologies, and the services and products included in the list of objects of regulation. For example, there is no definite answer to what is considered fintech within big tech, for example, when the largest messenger or social network introduces a service in the P 2 P payment format (Arner et al., 2017). The "fintech as a service" approach suggests focusing on the financial function and separating it from the rest of the technological system, while "fintech as a business model" (the latter we saw with the preventive ban on the Libra cryptocurrency from Facebook before the launch of the project) focuses on the activities of the entire legal entity, which is going to be responsible for the operating system and provide the product (service) to the consumer on the market.
All this leads to the fact that statistics and forecasts regarding fintech and the fintech sector in the financial services market are characterized by critical contradictions. As researchers, for example, S. Omarova, note, real statistics and data on the activities of a particular service belong only to their providers, and the regulator is not able to collect it due to the lack of both a collection mechanism and an idea of what exactly should be included in reporting (Omarova, 2019). The construction of the technological structure of each specific fintech service differs from another, even if it is similar in function, and the process of obtaining data, as well as the data itself and its composition, can vary significantly.
This, in turn, influences the assessment of the risk that fintech poses to the financial market. Since economic theory is based on the presumption of the relationship between the positive and negative sides of any phenomenon, all the positive aspects of fintech — increasing the financial inclusion of the population, the growth of technological development of the state and the market, the speed and accessibility of transactions, etc. — are disadvantages from a legal perspective (Rajput, 2013). They lead to a decrease in the level of combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism, an increase in the amount of personal data when it is impossible to guarantee the quality of their protection, a decrease in the traceability of money transfers and a critical increase in the mass of such transfers, consistent destabilization of the market, and so on. Predictive ability and assessment of cause and effect are also significantly reduced — according to the results of an analysis carried out by JP Morgan, price surges in the oil
and petroleum products market in 2023 were caused not by situations in the global trade market, as many analysts believed, but by robotic traders based on artificial intelligence, whose actions were much ahead of the actions of human traders, and the logic of actions was determined by AI-algorithm. Such an effect, like an intervention, is difficult to preventively evaluate and analyze.
Thus, we build recommendations for fintech regulation in the area of uncertainty — and this conclusion should by no means be ignored. This uncertainty, both factual due to the intensively emerging innovation sector, and analytical, arising due to the lack of uniform data and assessment criteria, essentially calls into question the effectiveness and consistency of recommendations regarding the construction of a regulatory system for fintech. Apparently, this is also one of the factors due to which general theoretical recommendations to the regulator and legislator, and their practical implementation in specific regulatory policies at the local level, differ so much.
At the same time, we can say that the theory of regulation of fintech, that is, systems, approaches and specific methods, have developed at the national level. We can distinguish two main areas of regulation: this is the one that existed before fintech and where it should be integrated (Ranchordas, 2014), and the one that is formed specifically for it, that is, special law and law enforcement practice.
Considering the features of building a system for regulating fintech (as well as regulating technological innovations in general), we see that fintech changes the financial market, destroys it — that is, leads to fundamental changes in the existing relations of market participants. Experts in regulation theory, such as E. Mik (Mik, 2017) or C. Twigg-Flesner (Twigg-Fleishner,2017), as well as experts from international organizations, point out that to build effective regulation, it is necessary, first of all, to understand what exactly needs to be regulated. Moreover, both the technological component of services and products and their interaction with the existing regulatory system, at the intersection of which it arises and functions.
Fintech, as its name suggests, is formed at the intersection of financial and technological law; and, if the first is standardized and is a long-established legal industry, then the second is formed in the same way as the fintech sector (Fan, 2018). At the same time, the formation of technology law is influenced not only by fintech, but also by other technologies — cloud, artificial intelligence, big data, etc.
Therefore, there are two approaches to how researchers see the regulatory system of fintech. We can call them a technocratic fragmented approach, focused on local changes in national law, the main goal of which is to support innovation and develop the national fintech market (Fan, 2018; Cai, 2018), and a holistic approach, which aims to merge the fintech market and the financial market in a new a system of financial law, with the possibility of standardization at the level of international legal acts or, at least, within the framework of international "soft law" (Omarova, 2020).
In the first case, or rather, the recommendations made by representatives of this point of view constitute what is now called "legal regulation of fintech." Within the framework of the technocratic approach, it is customary to distinguish, at least in research works, several types of systems, methods and techniques of regulation, but practical analysis shows that they are combined with each other depending on which financial regulatory system prevails in a particular state.
Therefore, we believe that it is the system of financial law and financial regulation, including the system of regulatory bodies, that is the starting point that, at least now, determines the further choice of regulatory methods for fintech. Actually, even the choice between the form in which the fintech law should be formed — in the form of detailed regulations or a declarative norm-principle, in our opinion, is determined by which financial regulatory system prevails.
Therefore, legal norms related to fintech can be divided into three groups:
1) those that specifically regulate the fintech sector;
2) those that focus on the more general use of new technologies in the provision of any financial services;
3) those that form the basis of digital law.
This is the classification as suggested by
Ehrentraud et al, can be illustrated by a hierarchy in which fintech is the top of the technology pyramid, and not the base (as some definitions of fintech might suggest) (Ehrentraud et al., 2020). This classification fully reveals the problems that the regulator will face when building a system, indicating what exactly is worth considering (Ranchordas, 2014).
Let us recall that chronologically, digital law or technology law arose much earlier than the term "digitalization" appeared. Thus, the cornerstone of fintech regulation is the regulation of cybersecurity and combating computer crime, information law and its derivative — the law on
the protection of personal data. Next, within the framework of continuity of law-making, mention should be made of the activities of UNCITRAL, its recommendations, conventions and model laws in this area: Recommendations to Governments and International Organizations Concerning the Legal Meaning of Computer Records from 1985 as the earliest, then the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic trade and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures, the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records, others.
The next important regulatory step is technology legislation. We refuse to recognize fintech as a technology, and our opinion indirectly confirms that NIST adheres to a similar position. Technology is the practical implementation of a scientific concept; technology has attributes, a system and a method, that is, something that fintech does not have. Thus, in R. Volti's study "Society and Technological Change," technology is defined as "a system created by people that is organized in such a way and uses knowledge in such a way as to produce objects and methods to achieve specific goals" (Volti, 2005). Here we would like to separately note the word "methods", which include both theoretical and practical ways of translating a scientific concept into reality.
Based on our research, we believe the following:
1) technology is the result of scientific and technical activity expressed in objective form;
2) technology can serve as the technological basis for certain practical activities in the civil or military sphere (unified technology).
Fintech cannot serve as a technological basis, since it is itself based on technologies and their combinations, and the variety of these combinations is increasing from year to year. Therefore, the second stage of legal regulation, which influences the regulatory policy regarding fintech, is specific digital law, the law that regulates "precursor" technologies. There are a number of international instruments and recommendations, such as the working documents and recommendations of UNCITRAL Working Group IV on the law of electronic commerce, cloud technologies, electronic transferable records. Or national law, which is built in accordance with the technological market of a particular state, such as the law of e-commerce of the PRC, laws on cryptocurrencies, etc. It is worth noting that this legal field also applies to developing ones and regulations in this area arise and are changing at the same time as the fintech sector.
This phenomenon in itself complicates the issues of fintech regulation and building regulatory policy.
Accordingly, targeted regulation of fintech represents the top of the regulatory pyramid. This is what Twigg-Flesner talks about in her article on technology regulation: deciding on reform and its depth requires not just understanding exactly what to regulate, but how it interacts with what is already regulated (Twigg-Flesner, 2017).
And here fintech faces a serious regulatory dilemma as a phenomenon that exists simultaneously in technology and financial law. Since financial law, as already mentioned, is not just a much more developed industry, but also an older one, with history, customs and traditions, standardized and integrated into the legal systems of countries and international law, there is a high probability of conflicts between it and fintech law.
At the moment, we can build the following map of the legal regulation of fintech.
1. Legal regulatory regimes, which are divided into.
1.1. Regime based on the rule of law.
1.2. A regime based on the principle of law.
2. Legal systems of financial regulation, namely.
2.1. Institutional system.
2.2. Sectoral system.
2.3. Functional system.
2.4. The "two peaks" system.
Regime and systems determine how the system of legal regulation of finance is structured in a particular country (Makina, 2019). In many cases, such systems are unchanged, although there are examples of transitions at the will of the legislator, but their success is questionable. As our research shows, despite the existence of regulatory regimes and systems, in relation to fintech, the regulator can only determine the depth of regulatory intervention and then use regulatory methods of response. We identify four of them:
1) ban;
2) "watching and waiting";
3) "testing and analysis";
4) individual permission.
Each of these methods predominates in one or another regulatory system, however, in relation to fintech, many states prefer not to choose one universal method, but to apply each of them depending on the service or product that is presented on the market, both a specific one and a specific group. For example, the PRC uses a ban method for all cryptocurrencies, and a "watch and wait" method for other services and products before moving on to regulation (Muganyi et al., 2022).
Sometimes the process takes considerable time. At the same time, in Hong Kong SAR, which, like Singapore, is also dominated by sectoral regulation, the main methods are the "test and analyze" method, including within the framework of innovation hubs, regulatory sandboxes and incubators, and the individual resolution method (Fan, 2018).
All this together builds a rather complex regulatory system, regardless of what components the regulator of a particular sector and market uses to form it. However, no matter what system the regulation of fintech takes in practice, each of the regulators pursues three constant goals, highlighted, among other things, by such organizations as the IMF and the World Bank.
Thus we are faced with the problem of choice and accessibility. What exactly should be preferred among the goals and how exactly to act in order to get the desired result. At the same time, we have to act in the process of innovative restructuring. Since we are talking about technological solutions in the financial sector, it is impossible to postpone the regulatory reaction or be content with just a ban.
If we consider such destructive technologies as artificial intelligence embodied in products, it is obvious that limiting the breadth of application in the form of a regulatory ban is possible only if there is a material embodiment, that is, a product. For example, in the form of robotics, when technology is embodied in a material object combined with software. A robot operating on the basis of artificial intelligence may be prohibited from entering the market, withdrawn from civilian circulation, and not allowed for sale. Technological products and services that are of a virtual nature can only be partially limited, and such limitation, technological as well as the products themselves, has an extremely high cost (Pilkington, 2016).
Anonymous services, distributed services, services on a public blockchain are difficult to restrict (Pfitzmann, Kn;hntopp, 2001), and the more autonomous and anonymous the technology, the less human will is manifested in it, the less power the regulator has (Craswell, 2009). Law regulates human behavior in society; this is presumed in any rule of law. Autonomous technologies, algorithmic technologies, artificial intelligence technologies represent the embodiment of the concept of delegation — when an individual transfers a cognitive function to a technological solution. In traditional financial services, even highly digitalized ones, there are two necessary elements that reduce autonomy: the standards of traditional financial services, the rules of law that we can call procedural, and the representatives of
the financial institution who provide these services (Llewellyn, 1999). Therefore, the traditional financial sector is manageable, since the regulator has the ability to influence the legal behavior of the institution directly — influencing the individuals representing it.
In the case of fintech, the regulator often (according to some data in some national markets — up to 36% of cases) interacts with developers who create a fintech service as software, but do not provide services in the traditional sense (Dorfleitner et al., 2017). The service is delegated — both the cognitive function to artificial intelligence and the financial function — to the fintech algorithm. That is why neobanks, which essentially provide financial services that are outwardly similar to the services of traditional banks, are classified by all experts without exception as fintech services. The procedure, its order, access to it is not carried out by a person, eliminating the intermediary; fintech leaves the client alone with the technology, due to which many researchers talk about fintech as a "subject-to-subject" financial sector without an intermediary in the form of financial institutions and organizations.
Moreover, according to a number of forecasts regarding future market trends, fintech is interested in reducing the human factor. This reduces the cost of the services themselves, speeds up the process and, at the same time, reduces the level of individualization of errors and violations. Where the person performing the function may make a unique violation, technology is more predictable and controllable. But, as some authors say, not for the regulator.
Accordingly, the question arises of how to regulate what the regulator has to deal with in the anonymous fintech market. There are numerous recommendations, both scientific, theoretical, and practical, including those based on the analysis of already built regulatory systems (Auer, 2019). However, we believe that they inherit the shortcomings of the system for defining fintech, which ultimately leads to some inefficiency and even casualness of the regulatory system, that is, ultimately, to the individualization of the consideration of legal relations.
We can divide all recommendations into those based on the classification of fintech by the type of services provided and by type of belonging to a particular sector of activity. The latter, as a rule, is associated with licensing and the sectoral (traditional) system of financial regulation in the state (Macao SAR as an example).
The visibility of such regulation is given by the process of obtaining a license — regardless of who provides the service, if it is of a financial nature, activities in this area must be officially approved. Typically, in the case of fintech, this is done through the organization of a regulatory sandbox or even an innovation hub (Bromberg et al., 2017). Transnational activities can be verified through registration on a licensing platform if there are multilateral agreements between the states participating in such a platform (for example, Singapore is the initiator of this approach).
However, what looked like a solution to the regulatory problem in 2014—2015 suddenly faced serious challenges with the emergence of multifunctional platforms with complex internal integration. If previously an organization providing several types of fintech services or products went through the testing and licensing procedure for each of them, then in the case of a multifunctional fintech this is no longer so simple. First of all, difficulties arise where products or services have characteristics that allow them to be classified simultaneously as several types of objects of legal relations (for example, they have the properties of goods and currencies or securities at the same time, as is the case with the products Ethereum, Gram, Libra). Institutional or sectoral financial regulatory systems are not ready for this and a situation of regulatory conflict arises, in which different regulatory authorities impose mutually exclusive requirements on the same object.
Similar types of fintech services could be classified as bigtech, but in practice such a distinction does not play a role. All that matters is what product or service is being presented on the market, but in the case of multifunctional services, this is extremely difficult to determine. At the same time, almost nowhere have we come across examples of disputes about the jurisdiction of regulatory bodies regarding the object of regulation, apparently because traditional law does not allow such disputes even in theory, regardless of the legal system and legal family. Even where the fintech service provider applied to the court for clarification, he did not receive one, since the court is not ready to approach the resolution of the conflict from the position of the paradox of fintech. And this reveals the very destructive property of innovation that marketers and economists talk about (Awrey et al., 2013).
Even more difficult for regulation are fintech services built on the principle of free customization, usually on a public blockchain. Blockchain is essentially an infrastructure-as-a-service concept,
giving users the ability to build applications on top of it that can be consumed by just a few parties, even two users, including the developer. Anonymity, autonomy and decentralization, as modern trends in fintech, pose the greatest challenge to the ability of the regulator to intervene in the process and correct it in accordance with the law and current regulations (Dorfleitner et al., 2023). This, in turn, calls into question the issue of regulatory standardization of fintech by analogy with banking.
And here the researchers propose to move from a regulatory model to a self-regulatory model, since the latter allows requirements for legal compliance to be built into technology. This concept is the most free method of using regtech.
In some works of both supporters of the technocratic approach and the holistic approach, there is a statement that corresponds to our conclusions regarding the depth of possible regulation. The authors argue that the law cannot influence or regulate another system without interacting with that system, and that failure to do so constitutes a regulatory trilemma (Brummer, Yadav, 2019).
In order to establish the most effective regulatory system, taking into account the patterns identified in the Trilemma, it is necessary to understand how elements of self-regulation exist within the system. When scientists turn to the issue of regtech as a tool for fintech regulation, they nevertheless ignore the "black box" problem, that is, the problem of understanding exactly how self-regulation is implemented in a technological service (Arner et al., 2017).
Self -regulation and self-government of fintech is possible only by integrating this capability into an algorithm, that is, software through code and other highly specialized capabilities. An example of the latter is consensus, namely operational closure, or the self-sufficient rationality of the system. However, we must understand that it is impossible to force developers to limit the cognitive autonomy of services (like robo-investing on AI), or the extent to which a system is open to influence from other systems, in particular, to mutual integration (like Bitcoin).
In doing so, the regulator must take into account the functionality or mode of operation of a particular service, because they determine the sequence with which the code controls the service (Dorfleitner et al., 2023). When creating a regulatory standard, the regulator needs to consider two things:
1) regulatory capacity, examining whether law can influence the service, whether there are any
opportunities through which law can influence that system, and whether there is openness or willingness within that system to be influenced by legal regulation;
2) whether there is a need for regulatory intervention in the internal governance structure of fintech and consideration of the role of law in this system.
The problem with regulating anonymous fintech is that the code, which in other cases only determines how the software and, accordingly, the service functions, in the case of certain types of fintech creates objects of financial law, such as currencies, securities, goods, etc. And all this is created online, autonomously from the material world, only through code generation. And in such cases, the code becomes the same regulator, a subject without subjective embodiment, which determines exactly how and in what order the service will function. Cognitive autonomy, sometimes close to the autonomy of artificial intelligence and even exceeding it, is based on mathematical rules, creating a paradox that has a material value and a completely intangible object of law and legal relations in one.
Almost all studies, with rare, literally isolated exceptions, when forming recommendations for building regulation of fintech, proceed from the fact that intervention in the code is possible and the system can be changed in accordance with the requirements of the regulator. However, modern, closed, autonomous and anonymous fintech services are almost completely closed from such interference, since this guarantees the safety and uninterrupted operation of financial transactions within the service. The operating rules of fintech services built on these principles do not require human will for the operating rules to come into force; moreover, from the moment of launch, in relation to a number of such services, a person becomes only a user, but not a participant in the functioning of the technology.
The idea that code is a regulator was stated in the work of Lawrence Lessig long before the emergence of fintech. Lessig pointed out that it is a big mistake to consider cyberspace or Internet systems to be ungovernable and unable to be so, or unregulated and unable to be regulated, because cyberspace is regulated through the codes on which it is based (Lessig, 1999). Although this statement was made before the era of autonomy and virtualization, it could not be more applicable to fintech. This is the conclusion that we came to during the study — the main risk and feature of fintech is that the architecture of the financial
sector is now determined by the developer, those who launch the service and, in some cases (but not necessarily) support its functionality.
This raises the question of the possibility of regulating fintech in general and the full implementation of this opportunity. As we were able to establish, in the end, one way or another, but in the presence of a legislative norm in the case of fintech, the regulator is still faced with the need to individualize enforcement to a much higher degree than in the case of traditional financial services. The reason, as is already clear, is the inability to influence the real regulator — the code and its component in the technology, and sometimes the degree of impossibility can be absolute.
A number of researchers reject a regulatory ban as an example of regulation, rightly pointing out that in this case the legislator loses the ability to manage the processes occurring within the sector (Brummer, 2011). Considering that fintech is a technological phenomenon, the ability to ban is determined by the ability to implement it at the technical level, that is, the technical development of the market of a particular country. Because, as the authors point out, some countries are more successful in applying regulatory prohibition than others (Lu et al., 2019), but this argument is heard constantly, for example in relation to the Budapest Convention. However, the regulatory ban itself does not prohibit anything; it only brings fintech into the "gray sector" and leaves the system and its users without protection, and the regulator without the ability to influence innovation capture. It is he who poses the greatest challenge to the financial market and financial regulation, since, uncontrolled, it forms it according to the laws of free economic development and according to individual demand in the local financial services market.
A different initiative is put forward by supporters of a holistic approach to fintech regulation. They base their theories on a general understanding of fintech as part of the financial world and law, arguing that the main risk and harm (sometimes I use this term) fintech brings specifically to the sector of financial services and financial relations. Fintech is destroying the centuries-old order of the financial world, which is why the main attention of supporters of a holistic approach is focused on trying to minimize this effect. Thus, Omarova, like all supporters of the holistic approach among researchers, she changes the order of goals that the regulator must achieve when building a regulatory system (Omarova, 2020). First of all, she sees the main goal as achieving financial stability by regulatory methods
(that is, developing a stabilizing regulatory approach and regulatory system), the second is the development of the market, and only the third — support for innovative technologies and innovative development (Omarova, 2020).
Conclusions
1. Approaches to defining the concept of fintech in law are divided into three groups (academic, expert-financial and regulatory), each of which, in turn, contains two construction models. These models include a descriptive model and a service volume model. It has been established that, regardless of the model, none of the concepts can reliably distinguish fintech services from traditional financial services. There is no single legal approach to the concept of fintech, its main features, the scope of services and products that make up fintech as an object of legal regulation.
2. For the first time, the concept of anonymous fintech has been highlighted, which, in turn, allows us to divide all fintech into anonymous and non-anonymous. This approach allows us to avoid too broad an interpretation and create a more comprehensive regulatory model. The analysis highlights the main features of anonymous fintech and the main challenges for legislators and regulators, in particular, the reduced (to the point of complete impossibility) function of regulatory intervention in the activities of fintech providers, which directly affects the system of legal regulation of the fintech industry.
3. Through the prism of the above, existing regulatory recommendations were analyzed in order to determine the possibility of their application to regulate anonymous fintech. For this purpose, two model approaches to the construction of legal regulation systems were identified, within each of which the system components and methods of response of the legislator and regulator to the development of the fintech market within the country were shown.
4. Based on what was stated for the first time in fintech research, it was concluded that systems and methods of regulatory response are not independent regulatory approaches, but a set of regulatory tools that are chosen by the legislator or regulator based on the structure of fintech. market and financial regulation model in the country. At the same time, one way or another, in each of the studied examples, the regulator ultimately reduces the entire regulatory system to the conflict resolution of specific cases in relation to a specific fintech service. This makes enforcement of the law difficult. It has been
established that the legislator does not consider the problem of anonymous fintech services due to its invisibility, and the analyzed approaches themselves demonstrate serious problems of applicability of the law for anonymous fintech services.
5. Based on the above, the legal problems that the regulator faces in one way or another when interacting with anonymous fintechs were highlighted. The main gaps are described, including those related to the conflict between financial law and data law.
6. Particular attention is paid to the relationship between data protection law and financial law requirements. There are differences between the description of the implementation of the law in the contractual documents of fintech services and how this system is built into the fintech service and its technology. The construction of the technology, rather than the documentation of its compliance with the law, should be taken as the basis for assessing the ability to comply with AML/ KYC policies, data law policies, other legal requirements, and whether the emerging legal framework is effective.
References
1. Anand, D., & Mantrala, M. (2019). Responding to disruptive business model innovations: the case of traditional banks facing fintech entrants. Journal of Banking and Financial Technology, 3, 19—31.
2. Arner, DW, Barberis, JN, & Buckley, RP
(2016) The evolution of fintech: a new post-crisis paradigm? Georgetown Journal of International Law, 47(4), 1345—1393.
3. Arner, D. W., Barberis, J. N., & Buckley, R. P. (2017). FinTech and RegTech in a Nutshell, and the Future in a Sandbox. CFA Institute Research Foundation, 3(4), 1—20.
4. Arner, DW, Barberis, J., (2015) 'Regulating fintech innovation: a balancing act' Asian Institute of International Financial Law. Retrieved from http://www.law.hku.hk/aiifl/regulating-fintech-innovationa-balancing-act-1-april-1230-130-pm/)
5. Arner, D. W., Barberis, J., & Buckley, R. P.
(2017). FinTech, RegTech, and the Reconcep-tualization of Financial Regulation. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 37(3).
6. Arner, D. W., Zetzsche, D. A., Buckley, R. P., & Barberis, J. N. (2017). FinTech and RegTech : Enabling innovation while preserving financial stability. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 47—58.
7. Auer, R. (2019). Embedded supervision: how to build regulation into blockchain finance. Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute Working Paper, (371). https://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3494192
8. Awrey, D., Blair, W., & Kershaw, D. (2013). Between law and markets: is there a role for culture and ethics in financial regulation? Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 38(1).
9. Bromberg, L., Godwin, A., & Ramsay, I. (2017). Fintech sandboxes: Achieving a balance between regulation and innovation. Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice, 28(4), 314—336.
10. Brummer, C. (2011). How International Financial Law Works (and How it Doesn't). Georgetown Law Journal, 99, 11 —15.
11. Brummer, C., & Yadav, Y. (2019) Fintech and the Innovation Trilemma. Georgetown Law Journal, 107, 235.
12. Cai, C. W. (2018). Disruption of financial intermediation by FinTech: a review on crowdfun-ding and blockchain. Accounting & Finance, 58(4), 965—992.
13. Craswell, R. (2009). When Is a Willful Breach "Willful"? The Link Between Definitions and Damages. Michigan Law Review, 1501 —1515.
14. Didenko, A. (2018). Regulating FinTech: Lessons from Africa. San Diego International Law Journal, 19(2), 311.
15. Dniprov, O., Chyzhmar, Y., Fomenko, A., Shablystyi, V., & Sydorov, O. (2019). Legal Status of Cryptocurrency as Electronic Money. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 22(2).
16. Dorfleitner, G., Hornuf, L., & Kreppmeier, J. (2023). Promise not fulfilled: FinTech, Data Privacy, and the GDPR. Electronic Markets, 33(1), 33.
17. Dorfleitner, G., Hornuf, L., Schmitt, M.,
Weber, M., Dorfleitner, G., Hornuf, L.....& Weber,
M. The fintech market in Germany (Springer International Publishing, 2017).
18. Dorfleitner, G., Kreppmeier, J., & Laschinger, R. (2023). German FinTech Companies: A Market Overview and Volume Estimates. Credit and Capital Markets - Kredit und Kapital, (1), 103—118.
19. Ehrentraud J, Ocampo DG and Vega CQ, 'Regulating fintech financing: digital banks and fintech platforms' (2020) Bank of International Settlement <https://www.bis.org/fsi/publ/ insights27.htm> accessed 23 February 2023.
20. Eltweri, A. Fintech in Africa (Oxford: Oxford University, 2020)
21. Faccia, A., Moeteanu, N. R., Cavaliere, L. P. L., & Mataruna-Dos-Santos, L. J. (2020, September). Electronic money laundering, the dark
side of fintech: An overview of the most recent cases. In Proceedings of the 2020 12th international conference on information management and engineering (pp. 29—34). https://dl.acm.org/doi/ abs/10.1145/3430279.3430284
22. Fan, P. S. (2018). Singapore approach to develop and regulate FinTech. In Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and Inclusion, Volume 1 (pp. 347—357). Academic Press.
23. Hockett, R. C., & Omarova, S. T. (2022). State Capitalism in the United States: Development Finance State. In The Oxford Handbook of State Capitalism and the Firm (623—627). Oxford University Press.
24. Kahn, K. B. (2018). Understanding Innovation. Business Horizons, 61(3), 453—460.
25. Leong, K. FinTech (2018) (Financial Technology): What is it and how to use technologies to create business value in a fintech way? International Journal of Innovative Management Technology, 9: 74—78.
26. Lerner, J., Tufano, P. (2011) The consequences of financial innovation: a counterfactual research agenda. Annual Review on Finance and Economy, 3.1 41—85.
27. Lessig, L. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 2019).
28. Llewellyn, D. T. (1999). The economic rationale for financial regulation (Vol. 21). London: Financial Services Authority.
29. Lu, H., Wang, B., Wu, Q., & Ye, J. (2020). Fintech and the future of financial service: A literature review and research agenda. SSRN Electronic Journal.
30. Makina, D. (2019). The potential of FinTech in enabling financial inclusion. In Extending financial inclusion in Africa (pp. 299-318). Academic Press.
31. Mik, Eliza, Smart Contracts: Terminology, Technical Limitations and Real-World Complexity (August 17, 2017). Available at SSRN: https:// ssrn.com/abstract=3038406 or http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2139/ssrn.3038406
32. Muganyi, T., Yan, L., Yin, Y., Sun, H., Gong, X., & Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. (2022). Fintech, regtech, and financial development: evidence from China. Financial innovation, 8(1), 29.
33. Omarova, S. T. (2019). New Tech v. New Deal: Fintech as a Systemic Phenomenon. Yale Journal on Regulation, 36.
34. Omarova, S. T. (2020). Dealing with Disruption: Emerging Approaches to Fintech Regulation. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 61, 25—54.
Частно-правовые (цивилистические) науки
35. Omarova, S. T. (2020). Technology v technocracy: Fintech as a regulatory challenge. Journal of Financial Regulation, 6(1), 75—124.
36. Pfitzmann, A., & Kohntopp, M. (2001, March). Anonymity, unobservability, and pseudo-nymity — a proposal for terminology. In Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies: International Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability Berkeley, CA, USA, July 25—26, 2000 Proceedings (pp. 1—9). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
37. Pilkington, M. (2016). Blockchain technology: principles and applications. In Research handbook on digital transformations (pp. 225— 253). Edward Elgar Publishing.
38. Rajput, V. U. (2013). Research on know your customer (KYC). International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(7), 541—546.
39. Ranchordas, S. (2014). Innovation-friendly regulation: The sunset of regulation, the sunrise of innovation. Jurimetrics, 55, 201.
40. Suryono, R. R., Budi, I., & Purwandari, B. (2021). Detection of fintech P2P lending issues in Indonesia. Heliyon, 7(4). Retrieved from https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2405844021008859
41. Twigg-Flesner C, 'Disruptive Technology — Disrupted Law? How the Digital Revolution Affects (Contract) Law' in A. De Franceschi (ed) European Contract Law and the Digital Single Market (Intersentia 2016).
42. Volti R, Society and Technological Change (Macmillan 2005).
43. Wang, H., Chen, X., Du, J., & Lai, K. K. (2022). Classification of FinTech Patents by Machine Learning and Deep Learning Reveals Trends of FinTech Development in China. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2022.
44. Werbach, K. The blockchain and the new architecture of trust. (MIT Press, 2018).
Information about the author
Ya.O. Kuchina — Professor of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor.
Информация об авторе
Я.О. Кучина — профессор Российской академии естественных наук, кандидат юридических наук, доцент.
The article was submitted 15.01.2024; approved after reviewing 15.02.2024; accepted for publication 15.03.2024.
Статья поступила в редакцию 15.01.2024; одобрена после рецензирования 15.02.2024; принята к публикации 15.03.2024.
ИЗДАТЕЛЬСТВО «ЮНИТИ-ДАНА» ПРЕДСТАВЛЯЕТ
Психология. 2-е изд., перераб. и доп. Учеб. пособие. Гриф НИИ образования и науки. Гриф МУМЦ " Профессиональный учебник". Гриф МНИЦ Судебной экспертизы и исследований / Под науч. ред. И.В. Гро-шева, В.Л. Цветкова; под общ. ред. В.Ф. Родина, И.Б. Лебедева. 311 с.
ISBN: 978-5-238-03625-0
Учебное пособие разработано в соответствии с требованиями Федерального государственного стандарта по специальностям " Правовое обеспечение национальной безопасности" и " Правоохранительная деятельность". Рассмотрены основы психологии для сотрудников правоохранительных органов.
Для курсантов, студентов, адъюнктов, аспирантов вузов, а также всех тех, кто интересуется проблемами психологического обеспечения правоохранительной деятельности.
ПСИХОЛОГИЯ
Второе издание ^""HgL^
