CC BY
14УДК 34.09
DOI: 10.37399/2686-9241.2021.2.80-102
ш
Regulating Fintech in Russia: The Issues Raised from the Absence of Legal Definition
Yaroslava O. Kuchma
University of Macau, Macau SAR, People's Republic of China For correspondence: yakuchina@gmail.com
Introduction. Financial technology or fintech is one of the most discussed problems of the modern digitalization. Particular attention is paid to describing what the fintech industry is, how it relates to traditional financial regulation and to what extent the official recognition of financial technologies can affect economic regulation and the global economy.
Theoretical Basis. Methods. The article examines the concept of fintech and the regulatory aspects of the so-called "sandbox", which allows, being based on the comparative legal method and the method of legal expertise, to extrapolate specific problems to the entire situation in the field of fintech regulation. The author offers an overview of the main stages of the formation of legislation on financial technologies and examines the role of the Bank of Russia in this process. Results. Arguing about the consequences of such a concentration of regulatory mechanisms in the banking sector, the author thinks about the actual leveling of digitalization of banks with banking financial technologies in the science and practice of the Russian Federation. Based on a brief review of academic approaches to the definition of financial technologies, the author draws a number of parallels that allow one to outline the reasons for judicial errors and the reasons for excluding changes in fintech legislation from the attention of domestic courts, and draws conclusions about the general and particular consequences of the current situation. Discussion and Conclusion. During the study, the author comes to the conclusion that the scientific opinion about the development of the fintech industry and the need for its regulation in the Russian Federation is based on a narrow understanding of fintech itself and the peculiarities of introducing financial technologies into the practice of services. The author believes that the paradigm for the development of the domestic fintech market is focused on the so-called banking fintech, when financial technologies are consumed and built into the ecosystem of specific banks' activities and are not provided by non-banking entities. This leads to the fact that legislative regulation focuses on the development of banking law and, at the same time, excludes from the attention of the legislator and the main regulator - the Central Bank of the Russian Federation - other areas, such as, for example, insurance or non-banking investment. This situation makes it possible to ask the question of how much the image of fintech, formed in domestic law, corresponds to its actual state and market development, and in what proportion is the process of digitalization of traditional banking services understood by fintech.
Keywords: fintech, regulatory sandbox, cryptocurrency, judicial decision, judicial interpretation, regulatory framework
For citation: Kuchina, Ya. O., 2021. Regulating fintech in Russia: The issues raised from the absence of legal definition. Pravosudie/Justice, 3(1), pp. 80-102. DOI: 10.37399/26869241.2021.2.80-102.
Abstract
© Кучина Я. О., 2021
Регулируя финтех в России: проблемы, возникающие по причине отсутствия его правовой дефиниции
Я. О. Кучина
Университет Макао, Макао САР, Китайская Народная
Республика
yakuchina@gmail.com
Аннотация
Введение. Финансовые технологии, или финтех, на сегодняшний день являются одной из наиболее рассматриваемых проблем процесса цифровизации. Особое внимание уделяется описанию того, что такое индустрия финтеха и как она соотносится с традиционным финансовым регулированием, насколько введение и признание государствами финансовых технологий способно повлиять на экономическое регулирование и мировую экономику в целом.
Теоретические основы. Методы. В статье рассматриваются понятие финтеха и регулировочные аспекты так называемой «песочницы», что позволяет на основе сравнительно-правового метода и метода правовой экспертизы экстраполировать конкретные проблемы на всю ситуацию, сложившуюся в сфере финтех-регулирования. Автор предлагает обзор основных этапов формирования законодательства о финансовых технологиях и разбирает роль Банка России в этом процессе.
Результаты исследования. Приводя доводы относительно последствий такой концентрации регулировочных механизмов в банковском секторе, автор делает вывод относительно фактического уравнивания цифровизации банков с банковскими финансовыми технологиями в науке и практике Российской Федерации. Опираясь на краткое рассмотрение академических подходов к дефиниции финансовых технологий, автор проводит ряд параллелей, позволяющих обрисовать причины судебных ошибок и причины исключения изменений в законодательстве о финтехе из внимания отечественных судов, и делает выводы об общих и частных последствиях сложившейся ситуации. Обсуждение и заключение. В ходе исследования автор приходит к выводу, что научное мнение о развитости финтех-индустрии и необходимости ее регулирования в Российской Федерации базируется на узкоспециальном понимании самого финтеха и особенностях внедрения финансовых технологий в практику услуг. Автор полагает, что парадигма развития отечественного финтех-рынка сосредоточена на так называемом банковском финтехе, когда финансовые технологии потребляются и встраиваются в экосистему деятельности конкретных банков и не предоставляются небанковскими субъектами. Это приводит к тому, что законодательное регулирование концентрируется на развитии банковского права и одновременно исключает из внимания законодателя и основного регулятора -Центрального банка Российской Федерации - иные сферы, как, например, страхование или небанковское инвестирование. Подобная ситуация позволяет задаваться вопросом, насколько образ финтеха, сформировавшийся в отечественном праве, соответствует его фактическому состоянию и развитию рынка и в какой пропорции под финтехом понимается процесс цифровизации традиционных банковских услуг.
Ключевые слова: финтех, регулятивная песочница, криптовалюта, судебная практика, судебное толкование, законодательное регулирование
Для цитирования: Кучина Я. О. Регулируя финтех в России: проблемы, возникающие по причине отсутствия его правовой дефиниции // ПравосудиеД^йсе. 2021. Т. 3, № 2. С. 80102. DOI: 10.37399/2686-9241.2021.2.80-102.
I. Introduction
As it broadly defined in the academic papers, fintech refers to using technology for the provisions of financial services, sometimes called "the new marriage of financial services and information technology" [Arner, D. W., Bar-beris, J. N. and Buckley, R. P., 2016, p. 1271]. The phenomenon is now is very widespread and almost every state, especially those interested in digital transformation, are also interested in the modernisation of the financial sector. Fintech, as the World Development Report notes, is the part of the process through which "the world is experiencing the greatest information and telecommunications revolution in human history"1.
In general, under the definition of fintech the technologies that change the way of banking, investing and crediting are gathered together. Experts in the area highlighted that fintech is a part of contemporary trend - the trend of lifechanging [Maramygin, M. S., Chernova, G. V. and Reshetnikova, L. G., 2019] and that life digitalisation, allows not only to modernise, but also mostly to save time and money of society that is permanently moving. The experts now divide the financial sector into the fintech banking and banking universalis - that is, the traditional system, which includes not only bank services, but all the other ways of the "traditional" flowing of the finances [Semeko, G. V., 2020].
The researchers of the digitalisation and the digitalisation regulatory framework observe, that the speeding up of this process is strictly connected to the development of the internet, and we completely agree with this statement. In our opinion, the main impact which is pushing the transformation, is the shift from wired internet connection to wireless one, and the emergence of broadband high-speed internet. Consequently, when so called 4G switches to 5G we can reasonably expect an even greater surge of interest in the fintech - both from the economy and the political spheres. The current COVID-19 pandemic seems to be another catalyst, especially driving the area of paperless connections and communications.
The financial sector of the Russian Federation is no exception from this process, also because the digitalisation and the digital economy are part of the officially stated politics since 2016. The fintech sector of Russia is highly developed, and the state is in the top 0 of the international charts of the biggest fintech players [Vaganova, O. V., Kon'shina, L. A. and Belotserkov-sky, E. D., 2020, p. 10]. The industry ranges from distant banking services, developed very successfully, to the first regulatory sandbox on the territories of CIS2 member-states, established in 2018.
At the same time the regulatory matters of fintech are not that clear and it faces both opportunities and challenges. They emerge from the number of
1 World Development Report "Digital Dividends" // World Bank Group website. URL: https://www.vsemirnyjbank.org/
2 Commonwealth of Independent States.
issues coming from the legal society of practitioners and academical uncertainty. The reason for this uncertainty is the question if the "non-traditional" fintech changes the traditional business models of financial institutions. On the other hand, using fintech introduces a number of issues related to the regulation of personal data and cyber security. All these risks should be taken into account and implemented in the law that has so far been enacted and as well as new laws and amendments to be made in the future.
II. Theoretical Basis. Methods
In our previous papers we constantly raise the question about the combination and separation of the technical and non-technical components of digitalisation in the eyes of the law and the law enforcement officer, especially of the court. We consider both general problems and particular interpretations, over and over again coming to the conclusion about causality when considering legal relations with a technical component, which is caused, in each of the cases, by the architecture of a particular technology, which has unique features. We regularly conclude that in a situation where the digitalisation process collides with the current (and long-standing) system of law, the legislator should be as careful as possible with amendments to the legislation, and the regulator should constantly keep in mind the need to individually approach the process of extrapolating existing legal norms to the individual characteristics of the technology and legal relation.
Fintech is not an exclusion of this statement. Moreover, as a phenomenon that combines an innovative view of a particular sector of financial law and financial services, expressed in the form of a technological solution, it raises even more challenges than other technologies hitherto considered.
The core issues of this article are built on the example of a judicial decision regarding a claim for the protection of consumer rights for poor quality banking services. The claim was filed by a consumer of a banking service developed on a complex technology that integrates online-banking services, ro-bo-advising, sms-banking and electronic banking.
The reason for the claim was as follows. The plaintiff received a message about attempts to withdraw funds from her bank card by an unknown person. She immediately blocked the card in the online-banking system and called the bank operator with a request to block the account transaction. However, despite the actions, two hours after her actions, the amount over 200 000 rubles was transferred from her account to the account of the fraudsters. The lawsuit contained a requirement to return the illegally withdrawn funds and pay a fine for a poor-quality service.
During the trial, the bank representatives stated that when the consumer called the bank operator, the system interpreted the demand to block the transaction as a demand to terminate the service of using her bank card. Also, it was stated that the process of blocking the card through the online-banking system is not immediate. The plaintiff explained to the court that these facts
were not obvious either from the messages she received from the system and sms-banking service, or from the conversation with the bank operators and the robo-advising system. On the contrary, both the service and the messages give her the impression of an immediate response to a customer's request or requirement. Moreover, she was not informed about these features of the technologies when concluding agreements with a bank for the issuance and use of bank cards, nor when concluding an agreement when installing the system on a mobile phone. The court of first instance dismissed the claim, arguing that the plaintiff did not make all the necessary efforts to prevent the withdrawal of money. The higher court overturned the decision and clarified that the court of first instance, on the contrary, did not consider the circumstances of the case in accordance with the peculiarities of the legal relationship, and did not take into account all the features of the services provided3.
The described case is, contrary to the prevailing perception, the case of the use of fintech in banking services. We use this example as a reference in the analysis of the problem, caused, in our opinion, by a number of causes and consequences. In addition to the method of legal examination of the case, we will analyse the existing doctrine of the interpretation of the concept of fin-tech and resort to a comparative legal study of the above-mentioned problem.
III. Fintech of the Russian Federation and its Definition
Fintech includes many areas, such as payment systems, financial P2P (peer to peer) platforms (within which there are many specific financial products targeted of different types of consumers - crowdfunding, crowd-investing, crowd-landing), cryptocurrencies [Eyal, I., 2017, pp. 39-40], robo-advising and robo-investing, and Internet banking, etc. [Lee, D. K. C. and Low, L., 2018].
The increase of financial technologies began in 2008, after the world financial crisis of the period. This process occurred in parallel with the development of Internet technologies in general, most of which was based on the principle of virtualization [Anderson, T., et al., 2005], cloud computing, cryptocurrencies, and blockchain, etc. Sometimes it is called Fintech 2.0 [Arner, D. W., Barberis, J. N. and Buckley, R. P., 2016] to contrast it to the currently developing Fintech 3.0.
The portability of the devices and the access-on-demand services create the mobile generation (called digital nomadism [Willment, N., 2020, p. 391] and gives the opportunity to move most of the social activity into the virtual dimension e. g. digitalise it. This big shift generates a need for a new financial service and, as a consequence, built the basic concept of fintech. In the Russian academic papers and in the legal texts this process, in general, is called "digitalisation".
3 Determination of the Ninth General Jurisdiction Court of Cassation dated March 16, 2021 in case No. 2-1628/2020 // Archive of the court.
So, the first point that should be clarified is that digitalisation is the process of integration of the digital technologies in different social spheres, which is directly linked to the key changes of them. In most opinions the digitalisa-tion follows the changing of the legal regulation. So, as the academics say, fintech should not be an exclusion.
In our opinion, digitalisation is also the main point of the diversity. It effectively developed as the new sector of IT, and the fintech of Russia faces issues in the area of regulation. The reason for this is that the technological part of digitalisation (meaning the transferring of non-digital areas to the digital format and virtual world) is taking place faster than the part of creating the associated legal framework, and, usually, much faster. For example, there was an eight years gap between the emergence of the first national cloud computing services and the associated first cloud computing regulation.
Having analysed a number of reports and expert opinions on the development of the industry, we can highlight the following features of the Russian fintech sector:
1. A high level of digitalisation that concentrated mostly in the urban areas than in countryside (especially compared to China as the main leader);
2. A low margin of banking products and services;
3. The high level of state players in the sector, which in the last few years has not been as fast as a number of highly competitive private industries.
This has led to the situation when the area of fintech involvement is not higher than 50% and concentrated in the urban areas (so called city-millionaires) like Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Sochi, etc. But, even in these conditions, the new market is actively gaining volume. According to the most recent Deloitte estimates4, in 2018 the market volume amounted to 54 billion rubles. In 2019 the volume of the fintech market grew to 60 billion rubles (+ 11%), and in 2020 - up to 65 billion rubles (+ 8%).
This is supported by the permanent raise in number of people using internet technologies on daily basis: according to the experts in 2019 it was up 61.64% of the population [Zaborovskaya, A., et al., 2021, pp. 50-51]. More than 60% of these people use mobile internet technologies. Unfortunately, the predictions were made before the pandemic and its influence on the economy of the whole world.
At this moment the experts also point out two more tendencies that also have a positive impact on the area and arise from the third feature mentioned above. One is the tendency of replacement the traditional financial niche by non-financial businesses. These are IT-companies, large retailers and manufacturers that are more client-orientated [Musaev, V., et al., 2021], than traditional banks. This situation causes the next tendency under discussion, namely the reformation of the banking services and organisations, and the in-
4 See here: The report on digital banking. URL: https://www2.deloitte.com/ru/ru/ pages/research-center/articles/digital-banking-maturity-2020.html
crease of their partnership with start-ups and IT-monopolists of the national market. In this area banks are on the same position with the newcomers that also causes more competitive situations.
However, at the same time, the independent fintech projects in Russia are les developed compared to the other states of the top-10 Fintech developers. The main concentration of technological competencies is in the banking system, because of the lack of interest of investors (including international) in Russian fintech projects. According to the report of Venture Barometer, the percentage of venture investments in Russian projects has grown slightly from year to year but is not higher than 28%?. Only 1% of the international venture investors are ready to invest in the Russian fin-tech market.
After analysing a number of legal acts and expert opinions, we come to the preliminary conclusion that the reason for this is the legal regulation of fin-tech in Russia. Let us describe how this regulation is structured at the moment and how it has been developed.
IV. Fintech and the Bank of Russia
The Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Bank of Russia) is a special public law institution in Russia, the main bank of the first level. The legal status of the Bank is established by Article 75 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation which states that the Bank has the exclusive right to issue currency (Part 1) and to protect the ruble and ensure its stability, which is actually its main function (Part 2). The status, aims, functions and powers of the Bank of Russia are defined by Federal Law No. 86-FZ, dated July 10, 2002, on the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Bank of Russia) and by other federal laws6. In other words, it is a financial body strictly fitting and defining the financial sector.
According to Article 3 of that Federal Law, the goals of the Bank of Russia
1) to protect the ruble and ensure its stability;
2) to develop and strengthen the banking system of the Russian Federation;
3) to ensure the stability of and to develop the national payment system;
4) to develop the financial market of the Russian Federation and ensure its stability.
The Bank of Russia is an independent entity. It is a special public legal institution that has the exclusive right to issue currency and organise its circulation. The Bank of Russia is dualistic in its status - being not a body of
Research of the Russian Venture Capital Market "Venture Barometer 2019". URL: https://www.rvc.ru/press-service/news/investment/151970/
Federal Law of July 10, 2002 No. 86-FZ "On the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Bank of Russia)".
5
state power, it has powers that, in effect, are the functions of a such a body [Ochakovsky, V. A. and Volkov, A. A., 2017]. That is why the Bank of Russia, which is, in nature, acting as the main coordinating and regulating body of the entire credit system of the state, is the main economic management body of Russia.
That is also the reason why the Bank of Russia is the body that established the basics of the regulatory framework of fintech in the state, even though it was not the first that implemented the technologies in its system. The creating of this framework started on February 28, 2016, when the Bank of Russia established the Working Group to analyse financial technologies and innovations. Among the priority issues was the study of blockchain, as well as new technological achievements in the mobile banking, online payments and other areas.
As the Vice-Chairmen of the Bank pointed out, the development of the modern financial market is inseparable from the development of financial technologies, because "financial services are rapidly digitalising, new business models and ecosystems of market participants are emerging, and the behavior of consumers of financial services is changing"7.
According to the position of the Bank, the high-tech financial market needs a high-tech regulator, which must thoroughly understand the essence of new financial processes and technologies and their possible usage in future. After that on April 25, 2016, the Bank of Russia announced the establishment of the Fintech Department as a part of its structure. That is the date of official recognition of fintech as a regulated area, even though the law itself still did not exist.
The first result of the group's work was the Main Directions of Development of Financial Technologies for the Period 2018-2020 published in February 2018. This paper is the main national non-legal document on fintech.
The introduced paper describes trends, development strategy and plans for the introduction of innovative technologies in the field of finance and it is closely related to the State Program on the Development of the Digital Economy8. In addition, a roadmap has been published that regulates the timing of the development of fintech projects9.
The Central Bank has documented fintech. A basic document on the development of new technologies in the financial market has been published // Kommersant. 2018. 2 July. URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3541614
Passport of the national project National Program "Digital Economy of the Russian Federation" (approved by the minutes of the meeting of the Presidium of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for Strategic Development and National Projects of 04.06.2019 No. 7).
See: Main directions of development of financial technologies for the period 2018-2020 ("Main directions"), as well as the Action Plan ("road map") for their implementation ("Road map"). URL: http://www.cbr.ru/StaticHtml/File/36231/roadmap_18_20. pdf
7
8
y
The key points of the paper include analysis, research and development of proposals for the use of the new financial technologies, the creation and development of elements of digital financial infrastructure, legal support in the development of financial technologies, increasing flexibility and adaptability of regulation, creating a regulatory platform for the Bank of Russia for piloting innovative financial technologies, and the transition to electronic interaction between the regulator, public authorities, financial market participants and their clients.
Among the main elements of the digital financial infrastructure were platforms for remote identification, fast payments, a marketplace platform for financial products and services, as well as new platforms based on distributed ledgers and cloud technologies for effective interaction of market participants in the digital environment. The key connecting element of the financial market infrastructure is an Open API (a public application programming interface).
The next step, according to that project, was the creation of a regulatory sandbox. On the 19th of April 2018 the special regulatory plot of the Bank of Russia (regulatory sandbox) was established to ease the transition to the digital economy in the Russian Federation10. At the first stage, piloting in the form of "testing" is implemented within the framework of the regulatory platform of the Bank of Russia. This form involves modelling the target process of applying an innovative financial technology or service of fintech in a test environment with the absence of risks for consumers of the tested service.
According to the papers of the Bank, the regulatory sandbox is a special legal mode that allows companies to test innovative financial services and products without the risk of violating existing legislation. The sandbox was created after the analysis of the existing sandboxes of UK, Singapore and Australia. The sandbox of Russia allows not only to test the service that will be provided to the customers, but also allows the evaluation of how the particular tested fintech fits into the regulation - not only on issues of violation, but also on the lack of legal framework or legal practices, that is relevant to so called "regulatory guillotine" also suggested by the Bank.
The structure of the sandbox is different from those existing in other states and consists of two parts or process stages. The first part is a testing of the new technology without risks for the consumer. In essence, this is modelling of the new processes. On that stage the Bank of Russia and relevant departments examine the application and assess potential risks of a tested fintech project and make a decision about the advisability of introducing services. Technological testing is also possible on the infrastructure of the entity that submitted the application, or on the infrastructure of the Bank of Russia. It was decided that the duration of such testing should not exceed one and a half month, as opposed to six months to two years in other states [Alekseenko, A. A., 2018].
10 The regulatory "sandbox" of the Bank of Russia. See: Official website of the Bank of Russia. URL: https://www.cbr.ru/ fintech/regulatory_sandbox/
The second stage of the regulatory sandbox assumes testing in real conditions, with a restriction cap on the number of clients and the money transactions sums. This second stage is only possible if testing at the first stage reveals any process flaws or requires more detailed elaboration.
The next two years - 2019 and 2020 - were the years of sustainable development of standards and policy on fintech. The Bank of Russia turned into an ecosystem and a part of the infrastructure of the financial market, to which other players can connect, and offer "public platforms". The platforms are controlled by a consortium of organisations, credit or non-credit, and have as the main aim the provision of different types of standard services or registries that will be used by everyone, and none of the market players will have either control or the capability to "sell only their own" service or use registry.
Such an initiative will allow the provision of antimonopoly politics in the field of fintech development [Vikulina, E. A., 2020, p. 307]. This opinion is supported by the following example of Sberbank - the oldest and most influential bank organisation of Russia [Martynovich, V. I., Naydenkov, V. I. and Spiridonova, S. A., 2019, p. 32]. The project allows to effectively overcome the monopoly of Sberbank in the P2P-payments market. As experts mentioned, none of the market participants could cope with this problem on their own [Nikulina, O. V. and Pechenin, K. K., 2016]. Alfa-Bank (one of the five biggest banks of the state) is one of the first connected to the platform. Also, such platforms help small banks that cannot afford large and independent fintech projects of certain areas of business.
In general, such platforms increase the real competition for the client. Public platforms will enable customers to choose really favourable terms, not just the size of the bank. This will provide an opportunity for the development of medium and small market players.
The next step for the development of both platforms and standards was open API (application programming interfaces) for the banking sector. The Bank of Russia identified three types of Open APIs: commercial, infrastructure API and regulatory [Ponomarenko, V. V. and Detkina, D. A., 2018, p. 49]. The pilot projects were established in 2020, and the law on Open APIs should be developed in the first quarter of 2021. As it was noted in the Bank, the standardisation of Open APIs will provide convenience and optimisationof technological costs in the exchange of information between participants and accelerate the time to market [Ogorodnikova, E. P., 2020].
In August 21, 2019, it became known that the Bank of Russia acted as the coordinator of a pilot project in the field of Open APIs for integrating banking services within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)11. That became the first international project of such a kind being led by Russia. In the future, the de-
11 For more information about the EAEU and transnational digitalization, see the EAEU Shared Information Resources and Open Data Portal: https://opendata.eaeunion. org/ru-ru
velopment of open APIs will allow individuals to receive financial services from a bank of any EAEU country.
The pandemic caused the issuing of the fintech rules and standards in 2020 because of the pandemic. On April 2020 the Central Bank of the Russian Federation allowed banks to remotely open accounts for small and medium-sized businesses. The norm was declared temporarily and was issued to support on-distance and paperless services in the time of self-isolation.
At the end of December 2020, the Bank introduced plans to develop a universal payment address, which will ensure the crediting of funds to the recipient when the bank details are changed. The regulator expects to simplify the process of changing the servicing bank for clients.
Such a mechanism can be launched if the market is in demand, and it is referenced to the draft strategy for the development of the National Payment System for 2021-2023, which the Bank of Russia sent to the industry representatives12. The Bank plans to determine the conditions for such a transition. The launch of mechanisms for a simplified bank change should promote the development of competition, says this document. It also should help to promote the diversity on the financial market where about 65% of bank accounts are concentrated onto the one player - namely Sberbank.
V. Fintech in the Russian Federation in the Papers of Scholars,
and its Definition
From the above, it is obvious that the current regulation of fintech in Russia is concentrated within the powers and competence of the Bank of Russia. In the whole list of its papers, at the moment, there is no concept of fintech definition as an exhaustive list of services - or lists of characteristics that could make it possible to differentiate fintech from other digitalisation of the banking sector. The situation is similar at the level of federal legislation.
Digital banking and fintech are not the parts of the same concept. The scholars point out that digitalisation of banking was the step between traditional financial services and fintech, together with the cryptocurrencies, blockchain and cloud computing [Stulz, R. M., 2019]. However, there is a distinction between these two. The distinction can be summarised thus:
1. Digital banking means the process of the digitalisation - moving from the analogue process and services to the digital, internet-based. Online-banking, sms-banking, ATM are examples of the ways of providing the traditional banking through the digital technology. They are not truly innovative.
2. The aim of digital banking is to speed up the communication between the customer and the bank via digital channels, when the main aim of fintech is to provide totally new business models.
12 The national payment system provides non-cash payments and payments of citizens and legal entities // The official website of the Bank of Russia. URL: https://www. cbr.ru/PSystem/#:~:text
3. Digital banking fits the existing financial and banking legal regulation, and fintech is outside of its scope.
Currently there is no single unified opinion on whether the digital banking should be included into the fintech or whether it should be considered as a transition step from the traditional banking to the fintech. In our opinion the digital banking should be differentiated from the fintech applied in the banking sector. However, the reasons for this position are out of scope of this article. In this paper we only highlight the conclusion that in the approach of the Central Bank digital banking is part of fintech. This is obvious from the papers and documents of the Bank of Russia, cited above.
The second conclusion, that also can be found out from different academic opinions, is that fintech of Russia has not been legally defined. In the papers and reports of the Bank, discussing the financial technologies as such, we could not find any terminological construction or even a definitive framework to conclude the opposite.
That is the reason why almost all papers and articles about the subject have referred to the technological, financial or political sources written by national and international authors. After the analysis of a selection of these, we can conclude that the academic definitions created on the base of a legal understanding of fintech are quite rare. However, we can highlight at least three approaches to define fintech without recourse to a legal definition.
Firstly, an approach is to describe fintech as a number of technologies, when an author mostly refers to the technological understanding and terminology to cover the area related to financial technologies [Koposov, A. V., 2017].
Secondly we can understand fintech as a separate branch of the economy, consisting of organisations that provide a special type of product - financial technology or fintech [Eskindarov, M. A., et al., 2018]. In that approach experts usually separate fintech as economic phenomena and fintech as products and/or services in particular.
Thirdly we have the approach when authors try to define fintech by themselves [Sviridov, O. Yu. and Nekrasova, I. V., 2019], but, because of the special characteristics of it, they produce a technological or economical description, means they end at the same point as the two groups above.
This terminological uncertainty is based on both translation and definitive difficulties. The same tendency can be seen in case of cloud computing, which was later solved by the NIST Hogan M., Liu F. and others, 2011] and UNCITRAL [Ramos, R. F., 2018].
The question may be raised - why this is so significant when many jurisdictions ignore the definition and successfully refer to the technological description? The answer for this question can be given on the example we mentioned in section II of the article - on the judicial decision mentioned in it.
VI. The Absence of Fintech Definition and the Issues of the Interpretation of it in Courts and Legal Practice
The role of legal definition is very well known. Briefly, a social relation enters into the legal system only through its terminological definition in the rule of law. Such a term can be included in legislation in several ways: by simple mentioning, by disclosing its content through concepts or by means of an aggregate interpretation of its characteristics. Legal definition must meet the following quality requirements: it should be systemic, not dependent on the context, short, unambiguous in interpretation, simple (understandable) for all participants of the legal relationship, contemporary, unique (not to have legal synonyms and homonyms) [Urmatova, A. D., 2017].
Consistency is the most important characteristic. It presupposes the integrity and internal unity of law, the operation of legal norms in close interaction with many other rules in the composition of legal institutions and industries, predetermines the fact that legal concepts are related and interdependent on each other [Gubaeva, T. V. and Pigolkin, A. S., 2000]. In the absence of a legal definition, the systematic nature of a regulated phenomenon is extremely difficult to establish. The concepts proposed by academics in their papers, with all their positive features, are not able to eliminate the gap - firstly, due to the absence in Russian law of the institution of a mandatory doctrine of academic interpretation, and secondly, because of the fragmentation of the content of attempts at such an interpretation. The most recent papers include the following examples of such attempts:
- Fintech is innovative technologies for the provision of financial services via the internet [Povetkina, N. A. and Ledneva, Yu. V., 2018];
- Fintech is a complex system that unites the sector of new technologies and financial services, start-ups and related infrastructure [Maslennikov, V. V., Fedotova, M. A., and Sorokin, A. N., 2017];
- Fintech is a development and implementation of innovative technologies in the financial sector (the main goal is to improve the efficiency of banks and the financial system in general) [Nikonov, A. A. and Stel'mashonok, E. V., 2018];
- Fintech as a general way of digitalisation and virtualisation of the "traditional" banking services.
The definition approach influences the way of understanding which technologies should be included into the scope of fintech. According to the analysed papers [Lee, I. and Shin, Y. J., 2018], there are four financial sectors in this scope:
1) Fintech in the sector of financing (crowdfunding, crediting and factoring);
2) Fintech in assets management (social trading, digital (robotic) consulting, customer finance management, investment and banking);
3) Fintech of payments (alternative payment methods, blockchain and cryptocurrencies);
4) Fintech of insurance.
As we can see, this classification is totally opposite to those that can be found in the official papers of the Bank of Russia. Moreover, the classification and the definitive approaches from the above are based on international experience and academic papers, and not on domestic.
We also see that when defining fintech, not legal, but technological and economic features of the phenomenon are used, which allows free interpretation of the specific diversity of financial technologies and their affiliation. This, among other things, causes the discussion, we have mentioned, on the including of digital banking services in the scope of fintech.
At the same time, the fact that the legal regulation of fintech is represented only and exclusively by acts of the Bank of Russia forms an idea of the limitations of financial technologies in banking or their belonging to the banking sector of the market. At the same time, the limits of adoption of acts are limited by the competence and powers of the Bank of Russia, due to which from the list of financial technologies practically excludes crowdfunding, crypto-currencies, insurance, etc. This is evidenced by the fact that the legal act on cryptocurrencies - the act on financial digital assets - is a federal law, not the act of Bank of Russia.
Such a solution is not the only one - as we can see from the comparative analyses, in different states these different approaches can be found. The limitation of the sector to the regulator's competence is usual and not unique, however, it means the different sectors of the regulating and the unified legislative act of the high level, means, the federal law in the Russian legal system. For example, this can be found in the Hong Kong SAR, the United States - where there is the federal law and more concentrated law of states [Gerlach, C., Simmons, R. and Lam, S., 2016], and UK [Chen, C., 2020], Japan, and also Brazil [Suzuki, Y. and Oue, R., 2016]. In Hong Kong, where three regulatory sandboxes are established for three market sectors, there are three regulators responsible for the legal application (they provides strictly regulatory relief to accepted entities and limit the sector of the area of regulation): HKMA (Monetary Authority), Insurance Authority, Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), but the legislator is still a single legislative body [Huang, R. H., Yang, D. and Loo, F. F. Y., 2020].
Also, our domestic approach does not take into account the specifics of judicial enforcement. The absence of a federal law essentially excludes such changes of the legal relationship in the eyes of the court - the court objectively does not have the opportunity to notice such changes and amendments, unless the category of legal relationship is the judicial specialisation, as is the case with arbitration courts of Russia.
In courts of general jurisdiction, we often see a situation when a legal relationship, the essence of which has been changed by a technological component, is considered by inertia without taking into account such a component - and this always leads to miscarriages and unintentional judicial mis-
takes. We have already mentioned, and we will repeat again that in such a situation the correct application of the law entirely depends on the erudition and competence of the parties in the trial, their technical knowledge of the awareness of the digitalisation in the state. This approach cannot be called correct.
VII. Discussion and Conclusion
The main feature of Russian fintech is that a key role in its development, in contrast to other states, is played by leading banks of the industry, which are characterised by centralised decision-making under the influence of regulators. That is the reason why the main technological potential is concentrated directly in the banking system. It is the banks who are very active in the development of digital technologies and innovative products, promoting digital sales and online services for customers, using advanced identification systems, cloud technologies, big data analysis and artificial intelligence. However, banks are also the main consumers of fintech products, because the main leading banks sell the fintech products to the smaller players of the market. That situation directly reflects on the regulation framework and clearly have a great influence on it.
The analysis made for this paper allows to suggest, that among the reasons, hindering the development of the industry, most often called economic - are an insufficient number of venture and foreign investors, as well as investors in general. We believe that this approach misses two more areas requiring further research.
Firstly, I did not find enough objective marketing research that would make it possible to draw a conclusion about the need for independent fintech services on the market. At the same time, in the papers concerning the research of the banking sector, the conclusion about the reasons for the predominance of the top-five banks throughout the state has been yet justified - distrust of small banks on the part of the consumer, especially individuals. This feature of the Russian banking sector, in which the overwhelming majority prefers to receive services and products from banks with a long-standing reputation, directly affects the development of independent fintech companies.
In addition, such less significant banks are regional - that is, they operate on the territory of one or several regions of Russia, which, again, negatively affects the demand from the client, who needs access to banking services throughout the country and abroad. This combination of distrust of independent and new market players, and a clear preference for reputable banks should most likely affect the formation of the fintech market. However, this conclusion is hypothetical, since it requires extensive research.
Second, a comprehensive analysis of banking regulation and the above-mentioned areas is required. In most of the papers, I found only a link to the relationship between the dominance of banking fintech and the development of fintech regulation. Academics note that the leadership of banks as
the main players in the fintech market leads to a bias in the banking industry regulation. Accordingly, they are critical of the development of independent fintech legislation that will not focus on the banking sector. And here it is impossible not to agree - the above data show that the current regulation of fin-tech is carried out not only according to the model of banking legislation, but also by a banking authority, namely the Bank of Russia. In other words, the current regulation does not form a fintech legal framework, but a fintech-ori-ented part of banking law.
Therefore, I believe that before drawing conclusions on the further development of fintech legislation, it is necessary not only to analyze the economic prerequisites for the emergence of independent fintech products and services, but also to conduct research on market demand, as well as to analyse the existing financial and banking law of Russia. In particular, it is necessary to understand exactly which of the articles of banking law can be, without changes, introduced into the implementation of fintech products and services.
Taking into account the peculiarities of all Russian law, it is necessary to determine the difference between the nature of banking services and fintech, and, when forming legislation, rely not on the priority of the banking sector, but on the development of the fintech industry. Without such research, in my opinion, the fintech sector in Russia will remain at the level at which it is now and there will be no progress in future.
References
Alekseenko, A. A., 2018. The legal status and operating procedure of the regulatory sandbox of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. Al-leya nauki = [Alley of Science], 2(7), pp. 508-512. (In Russ.)
Anderson, T., Peterson, L., Shenker, S. and Turner, J., 2005. Overcoming the Internet impasse through virtualization. Computer, 38(4), pp. 34-41. DOI: 10.1109/MC.2005.136.
Arner, D. W., Barberis, J. N. and Buckley, R. P., 2016. The Evolution of Fintech: A New Post-Crisis Paradigm? SSRNElectronic Journal, 47(4), pp. 1271-1319. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2676553.
Chen, C., 2020. Regulatory Sandboxes in the UK and Singapore: A Preliminary Survey. In: M. Fenwick, S. V. Uytsel, A. B. Ying, eds. Regulating FinTech in Asia: Global Context, Local Perspectives. Forthcoming, August 2020. Available at: <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=3448901>. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-5819-1.
Eskindarov, M. A., Abramova, M. A., Maslennikov, V. V., et al., 2018. The directions of fintech development in russia: expert opinion of the financial university. Myr novoy ekonomik = [World of New Economy], 12(2), pp. 6-23. (In Russ.)
Eyal, I., 2017. Blockchain technology: Transforming libertarian cryp-tocurrency dreams to finance and banking realities. Computer, 50(9), pp. 38-49. DOI: 10.1109/MC.2017.3571042.
Gerlach, C., Simmons, R. and Lam, S., 2016. US Regulation of Fin-Tech-Recent Developments and Challenges. Journal of Financial Transformation, 44, pp. 87-96.
Gubaeva, T. V. and Pigolkin, A. S., 2000. Linguistic rules of legislative technique. In: V. M. Baranov, ed. Problemy yuridicheskoj tekhni-ki = [Problems of legal technique]. Collection of articles. N. Novgorod. Pp. 279-284. (In Russ.)
Hogan, M., Liu, F., Sokol, A. and Tong, J., 2011. NIST cloud computing standards roadmap. NIST Special Publication, 500-291(2), Version 2, pp. 6-11. Available at: <https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf. cfm?pub_id=909024>.
Huang, R. H., Yang, D. and Loo, F. F. Y., 2020. The development and regulation of cryptoassets: Hong Kong experiences and a comparative analysis. European Business Organization Law Review, 21(1), pp. 1-29. DOI: 10.1007/s40804-020-00174-z.
Koposov, A. V., 2017. Analysis of modern digital technologies' implementation in the financial sphere. Sbornik nauchnyh trudov po mate-rialam mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii "Finansy, nalogi i uchet v stranah dal'nego i blizhnego zarubezh'ya: innovacionnye resheniya" = [Collection of scientific papers based on the materials of the international scientific-practical conference "Finance, taxes and accounting in the countries of far and near abroad: innovative solutions"]. Belgorod: Agency for Advanced Scientific Research. Pp. 237-241. (In Russ.)
Lee, D. K. C. and Low, L., 2018. Inclusive fintech.: blockchain, crypto-currency and ICO. New York: World Scientific. ISBN 9789813238633 (hardcover); ISBN 9789813272767 (softcover).
Lee, I. and Shin, Y. J., 2018. Fintech: Ecosystem, business models, investment decisions, and challenges. Business Horizons, 61(1), pp. 3546. DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2017.09.003.
Maramygin, M. S., Chernova, G. V. and Reshetnikova, L. G., 2019. Digital transformation of the financial services market in russia: trends and specificity. Upravlenets = [Manager], 10(3), pp. 70-82. (In Russ.) Martynovich, V. I., Naydenkov, V. I. and Spiridonova, S. A., 2019. Digi-talization of Banking Services (on the example of PAO "Sberbank"). Nau-ka i obshestvo = [Science and Society], 2, pp. 32-35. (In Russ.)
Maslennikov, V. V., Fedotova, M. A. and Sorokin, A. N., 2017. New financial technologies change our world. Vestnik Finansovogo Universi-teta = [Bulletin of the Financial University], 21(2), pp. 6-11. (In Russ.)
Musaev, V., Khobotova, S., Knyazeva, I., et al., 2021. Assessment of the Economic Results of the Digital Transformation of the Client-Centric System of Sberbank of Russia. SHS Web of Conferences, 93, pp. 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20219304007.
Nikonov, A. A. and Stel'mashonok, E. V., 2018. Analysis of modern digital technologies' implementation in the financial sphere. Nauchno-teh-nicheskie vedomosty SPbGPU. Ekonomicheskie nauki = [Scientific and Technical Statements of SPbSPU. Economic Sciences], 11(4), pp. 111119. (In Russ.)
Nikulina, O. V. and Pechenin, K. K., 2016. Creation and introduction of financial innovations in bank activity (on the example of PAO "Sberbank"). Ekonomika ustojchivogo razvitiya = [Economics of Sustainable Development], 1, pp. 283-293. (In Russ.)
Ochakovsky, V. A. and Volkov, A. A., 2017. [The legal position of the Central Bank of Russia as a body carrying out financial activities of the state]. In: S. S. Chernov, ed. Sbornik materialov XXXVI mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii "Zakonnost' i pravoporyadok v sovre-mennom obshchestve" = Collection of materials of the XXXVI International scientific and practical conference "Legality and law and Order in modern society". Krasnodar: KubSAU Publishing House. Pp. 158-163. (In Russ.)
Ogorodnikova, E. P., 2020. [Digitalization in Russia, the main directions of development]. In: I. A. Man'kovsky, ed. Sbornik statej mezhdunarodnoj zaochnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii "Cifrovaya ekonomika - obrazovaniyu i nauke Soyuznogo gosudarstva Belarusi i Rossii" = [Collection of articles of the international correspondence scientific and practical conference "Digital economy - for education and science of the Union State of Belarus and Russia"]. Minsk: Belarusian State Agrarian Technical University. Pp. 89-91. (In Russ.)
Ponomarenko, V. V. and Detkina, D. A., 2018. Key areas of transformation of the bank industry during the era of digital economy. In: V. V. Ermolenko, ed. Problemy obshchestva i ekonomiki, osnovannyh na znanii: innovacii i neoindustrializaciya = [Problems of society and economy based on knowledge: innovation and neo-industrialization]. Collection of research articles of young researchers. Krasnodar. Pp. 49-63. (In Russ.)
Povetkina, N. A. and Ledneva, Yu. V., 2018. Fintekh and regtekh: boundaries of legal regulation. Pravo. Jurnal Vysshey shkoly economiki = [Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics], 2, pp. 46-67. (In Russ.)
Ramos, R. F., 2018. Cloud Computing: legal aspects and the latest work carried about by the UNCITRAL on this issue. Anuario Espanol Derecho Internacional FTivado, 18, pp. 441-448.
Semeko, G. V., 2020. New financial technologies: global trends and features of russia. Ekonomicheskie i socialnye problemy Rossii = [Economic and social problems of Russia], 1, pp. 50-74. (In Russ.)
Stulz, R. M., 2019. Fintech, bigtech, and the future of banks. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance. 31(4), pp. 86-97. DOI: 10.3386/w26312.
Suzuki, Y. and Oue, R. FinTech legislation in Japan. Global banking and financial policy review. Available at: <https://1.33.188.235/IFLR_ The_Global_Banking_and_Financial_Policy_Review_2016.pdf>.
Sviridov, O. Yu. and Nekrasova, I. V., 2019. [Trends in the development of fintech ecosystems in the Russian economy]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomika = [Bulletin of the Volgograd State University. Economics], 21(4), pp. 197-206. (In Russ.)
Urmatova, A. D., 2017. [Normative Legal Terminology]. Tavriches-kiy nauchnyi obosrevatel' = [Tavrichesky Scientific Observer], 2(19), pp. 99-102. Available at: <https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/norma-tivnaya-pravovaya-terminologiya> (Accessed: 5 April 2021). (In Russ.)
Vaganova, O. V., Kon'shina, L. A. and Belotserkovsky, E. D., 2020. Prospects for the development of key fintech segments in Russia. Nauchniy resul'tat. Ekonomicheskie issledovaniya = [Scientific Result. Economic Research], 6(2), 3-12.
Vikulina, E. A., 2020. Russia and the Netherlands: two views on the regulatory sandbox system. In: M. I. Sidorova and E. V. Ogloblina, eds. Sbornik nauchnyh statej studentov po rezul'tatam provedeniya VI Me-zhdunarodnogo foruma Finansovogo universiteta i Fakul'teta mezhdun-arodnyh ekonomicheskih otnoshenij = [Collection of students' scientific articles on the results of the VI International Forum of the Financial University and the Faculty of International Economic Relations]. Moscow: Nauch. Tekhnologii. Pp. 307-311. (In Russ.)
Willment, N., 2020. The travel blogger as digital nomad: (Re-)imagi-ning workplace performances of digital nomadism within travel blog-ging work. Information Technology & Tourism, 22(3), pp. 391-416. DOI: 10.1007/s40558-020-00173-3.
Zaborovskaya, A., Gruzdeva, K., Borzemska, et al., 2021. Russian Banking Sector Under the Influence of Fintech Innovations. XV International Conference "Russian Regions in the Focus of Changes" (ICRRFC 2020). Moscow: Atlantis Press. Pp. 49-57. ISBN: 978-94-6239-336-3.
Список использованной литературы
Алексеенко А. А. Правовой статус и порядок работы регулятивной песочницы Центрального банка Российской Федерации // Аллея науки. 2018. № 2(7). С. 508-512.
Ваганова О. В., Коньшина Л. А., Белоцерковский Е. Д. Prospects for the development of key fintech segments in Russia // Научный результат. Экономические исследования. 2020. № 6 (2). С. 3-12. Викулина Е. А. Россия и Нидерланды: два взгляда на систему регулятивной песочницы // Сборник научных статей студентов по результатам проведения VI Международного форума Финансового университета и Факультета международных экономических отношений / под ред. М. И. Сидоровой, Е. В. Оглоблиной. М. : Науч. технологии, 2020. С. 307-311.
Губаева Т. В., Пиголкин А. С. Лингвистические правила законодательной техники // Проблемы юридической техники : сб. ст. / под ред. В. М. Баранова. Н. Новгород, 2000. С. 279-284. Копосов А. В. Анализ сегмента финтех-технологий и их роль в развитии финансового рынка // Сборник научных трудов по материалам международной научно-практической конференции «Финансы, налоги и учет в странах дальнего и ближнего зарубежья: инновационные решения». Белгород : ООО «Агентство перспективных научных исследований», 2017. С. 237-241.
Марамыгин М. С., Чернова Г. В., Решетникова Л. Г. Цифровая трансформация российского рынка финансовых услуг: тенденции и особенности // Управленец. 2019. Т. 10, № 3. С. 70-82.
Масленников В. В., Федотова М. А., Сорокин А. Н. Новые финансовые технологии меняют наш мир // Вестник Финансового университета. 2017. Т. 21, № 2. С. 6-11.
Мартынович В. И., Найденков В. И., Спиридонова С. А. Цифрови-зация банковских услуг (на примере ПАО «Сбербанк») // Наука и общество. 2019. № 2. С. 32-35.
Никонов А. А., Стельмашонок Е. В. Анализ внедрения современных цифровых технологий в финансовой сфере // Научно-технические ведомости СПбГПУ. Экономические науки. 2018. Т. 11, № 4. С. 111119.
Никулина О. В., Печенин К. К. Создание и внедрение финансовых инноваций в банковскую деятельность (на примере ПАО «Сбербанк») // Экономика устойчивого развития. 2016. № 1(25). С. 283-293. Огородникова Е. П. Цифровизации в России, основные направления развития // Сборник статей международной заочной научно-практической конференции «Цифровая экономика - образованию и науке Союзного государства Беларуси и России» / под ред. И. А. Маньковского. Минск : Белорус. гос. аграр. технич. ун-т, 2020. С. 89-91.
Очаковский В. А., Волков А. А. Правовое положение Центрального банка России как органа, осуществляющего финансовую деятель-
ность государства // Сборник материалов XXXVI международной научно-практической конференции «Законность и правопорядок в современном обществе» / под ред. С. С. Чернова. Краснодар : Изд-во КубГАУ, 2017. С. 158-163.
Поветкина Н. А., Леднева Ю. В. «Финтех» и «регтех»: границы правового регулирования // Право. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. 2018. № 2. С. 46-67.
Пономаренко В. В., Деткина Д. А. Ключевые направления трансформации банковской индустрии в эпоху цифровой экономики // Проблемы общества и экономики, основанных на знании: инновации и неоиндустриализация : сб. науч. ст. молодых исследователей / под ред. В. В. Ермоленко. Краснодар : Кубан. гос. ун-т, 2018. С. 49-63.
Свиридов О. Ю., Некрасова И. В. Тенденции развития финтех-эко-системы в российской экономике // Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Экономика. 2019. № 21(4). С. 197-206.
Семеко Г. В. Новые финансовые технологии: глобальные тренды и особенности России // Экономические и социальные проблемы России. 2020. № 1. С. 50-74.
Урматова А. Д. Нормативная правовая терминология // Таврический научный обозреватель. 2017. № 2(19). С. 99-102. URL: https:// cyberleninka.ru/article/n/normativnaya-pravovaya-terminologiya
Эскиндаров М. А., Абрамова М. А., Масленников В. В. и др. Направления развития финтеха в России: экспертное мнение Финансового университета // Мир новой экономики. 2018. Т. 12, № 2. С. 6-23.
Anderson T., Peterson L., Shenker S., Turner J. Overcoming the Internet impasse through virtualization // Computer. 2005. Vol. 38, issue 4. P. 34-41. DOI: 10.1109/MC.2005.136.
Arner D. W., Barberis J. N., Buckley R. P. The Evolution of Fintech: A New Post-Crisis Paradigm? // SSRN Electronic Journal. 2016. Vol. 47, issue 4. P. 1271-1319. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2676553.
Chen C. Regulatory Sandboxes in the UK and Singapore: A Preliminary Survey // Regulating FinTech in Asia: Global Context, Local Perspectives / eds. M. Fenwick, S. V. Uytsel, A. B. Ying. Forthcoming, August 2020. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=3448901. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-5819-1.
Eyal I. Blockchain technology: Transforming libertarian cryptocurrency dreams to finance and banking realities // Computer. 2017. Vol. 50, issue 9. P. 38-49. DOI: 10.1109/MC.2017.3571042.
Gerlach C. A., Simmons R., Lam S. US Regulation of FinTech-Recent Developments and Challenges // Journal of Financial Transformation. 2016. Vol. 44. P. 87-96.
Hogan M., Liu F., Sokol A., Tong J. NIST cloud computing standards roadmap // NIST Special Publication. 2011. No. 500-291. Version 2. P. 6-11. URL: https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm9pub_ id=909024
Huang R. H., Yang D., Loo F. F. Y. The development and regulation of cryptoassets: Hong Kong experiences and a comparative analysis // European Business Organization Law Review. 2020. Vol. 21, issue 1. P. 1-29. DOI: 10.1007/s40804-020-00174-z.
Lee D. K. C., Low L. Inclusive fintech: blockchain, cryptocurrency and ICO. New York : World Scientific, 2018. 499 p. ISBN 9789813238633 (hardcover); ISBN 9789813272767 (softcover).
Lee I., Shin Y. J. Fintech: Ecosystem, business models, investment decisions, and challenges // Business Horizons. 2018. Vol. 61, issue 1. P. 35-46. DOI:10.1016/j.bushor.2017.09.003.
Musaev V., Khobotova S., Knyazeva I., et al. Assessment of the Economic Results of the Digital Transformation of the Client-Centric System of Sberbank of Russia // SHS Web of Conferences. 2021. Vol. 93. P. 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20219304007
Ramos R. F. Cloud Computing: legal aspects and the latest work carried about by the UNCITRAL on this issue // Anuario Espanol Derecho Internacional Privado. 2018. Vol. 18. P. 441-448.
Stulz R. M. Fintech, bigtech, and the future of banks // Journal of Applied Corporate Finance. 2019. Vol. 31, issue 4. P. 86-97. DOI: 10.3386/w26312.
Suzuki Y., Oue R. FinTech legislation in Japan // Global Banking and Financial Policy Review. URL: https://1.33.188.235/IFLR_The_Global_ Banking_and_Financial_Policy_Review_2016.pdf
Willment N. The travel blogger as digital nomad: (Re-)imagining workplace performances of digital nomadism within travel blogging work // Information Technology & Tourism, 2020. Vol. 22, issue 3. P. 391-416. DOI: 10.1007/s40558-020-00173-3.
Zaborovskaya A., Gruzdeva K., Borzemska M., et al. Russian Banking Sector Under the Influence of Fintech Innovations // XV International Conference "Russian Regions in the Focus of Changes" (ICRRFC 2020). M. : Atlantis Press, 2021. P. 49-57. ISBN 978-94-6239-336-3.
Информация об авторе / Information about the author
Yaroslava O. Kuchina, LLM., Cand. Sci. (Law), Research Assistant, PhD Student (University of Macau, Macau SAR).
Кучина Ярослава Олеговна, LLM., кандидат юридических наук, доцент, докторант Университета Макао (г. Макао САР).
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1681-1038. E-mail: yakuchina@gmail.com
Автор заявляет об отсутствии конфликта интересов. The author declares no conflicts of interests.
Дата поступления рукописи в редакцию издания: 09.04.2021; дата одобрения после рецензирования: 27.04.2021; дата принятия статьи к опубликованию: 12.05.2021.
Submitted: 09.04.2021; reviewed: 27.04.2021; revised: 12.05.2021.
