생몰정보
소속
직위
직업
활동분야
주기
서지
국회도서관 서비스 이용에 대한 안내를 해드립니다.
검색결과 (전체 1건)
원문 아이콘이 없는 경우 국회도서관 방문 시 책자로 이용 가능
목차보기더보기
List of tablesTable of CasesPrefaceAcknowledgementsList of AbbreviationsCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION1.1 Background1.1.1 From civil justice reform to private banking dispute in Hong Kong1.1.2 From Lehman Brothers’ collapse to protecting individual clients1.1.3 Suitability of ADR for banking and finance1.1.4 A missed opportunity for banks to build a more resistant global banking system1.2 Literature review1.2.1 Could we win? Perspective from power theory1.2.2 Could grievance be transformed into dispute? The ‘naming, blaming, claiming’ framework1.2.3 Merits, concerns, and possible models of arbitration for banks1.3 The research gap and research question1.3.1 The research gap1.3.2 The research question1.4 Research design and methods1.4.1 The research designs1.4.2 Stage 1: Content analysis of law, regulations, account opening forms, and arbitral rules1.4.3 Stage 2: The use of surveys and conducting quantitative analysis1.4.4 Stage 3: Case studies and qualitative analysis1.4.5 Analysing through the theoretical framework of ‘naming, blaming, and claiming’ under three thematic issues1.4.6 Research limitations and mitigation thereof1.5 Organisation of the bookCHAPTER 2 PRIVATE BANKING IN HONG KONG2.1 Introduction: Private banking as a segment of the financial conglomerate2.2 The private banking business2.2.1 The definition of a private bank and its significance in Hong Kong2.2.2 Identifying the four business stages in private banking2.2.3 The general characteristic of private banking clients2.2.4 Importance of private banking in Hong Kong2.3 The regulatory framework of private banking in Hong Kong and selected jurisdictions2.3.1 Bank–customer relationship2.3.2 Law, regulation, and code of conduct2.4 The content of the account opening forms2.4.1 Anti-money laundering, counter-financing of terrorism and ‘know your client’ in the private bank2.4.2 Globally applied rules on AML/CFT/KYC2.4.3 Lack of specific guidelines for the drafting of the account opening form2.4.4 Does the account opening form collect sufficient information to fulfil KYC requirements?2.4.5 The account opening form does not function as a contract between banks and clients2.5 Formation of power in bank–client relationship under dispute2.5.1 Source of bargaining power from private bank clients: Fear of floodgates2.5.2 The influence of third parties in a bank–customer relationship: bankers and regulator2.5.3 Take it, leave it, or shame it?2.5.4 Before the disputing process2.6 Conclusion: Lack of specific laws and regulations for private bankingCHAPTER 3 ARBITRATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR BANKS IN HONG KONG3.1 Introduction: Internationalisation of the dispute-resolution process3.2 ADR mechanism for banks in Hong Kong3.2.1 ADR for banking and finance in a global context3.2.2 Guidance from regulators on handling customer complaints3.2.3 Synthesis of existing complaint-handling system3.3 The under-utilisation of ADR in resolving banking disputes in Hong Kong3.3.1 Lehman Brothers collapse and adoption of ADR in resolving finance disputes3.3.2 The FDRC in Hong Kong3.3.3 The under-utilisation of FDRC services3.3.4 A global perspective: the 2016 ICC report and usage of arbitration and complaint-handling in selected jurisdictions3.4 The rule and power balance in arbitration3.4.1 The procedure rules in the arbitration centre designed for banks3.4.2 The role of the bank as arbitrator3.4.3 A case study: The role of the HKMA and power balance in a dispute3.4.4 The role of the HKMA as mediator3.5 Conclusion: When banks start to adjudicate their own disputeCHAPTER 4 UNFOLDING THE CLIENTS’ PERSPECTIVE: KNOWLEDGE VERSUS EXPERIENCE4.1 Introduction: do clients know the law?4.2 Clients’ knowledge and experience4.2.1 Set A: Clients’ knowledge of the laws and regulations for private banks4.2.2 Set B: Clients’ experiences when interacting with a private bank4.2.3 The relationship between clients’ knowledge and experience4.2.4 Clients’ preferences for arbitration process4.2.5 What are the clients’ preferences?4.2.6 Procedures not preferred by clients4.2.7 Procedures with a split view4.2.8 Implications: Clients may or may not prefer arbitration4.3 What is hindering the use of arbitration?4.3.1 Uncertain legal obligation and clients’ rights4.3.2 Lack of understanding of what arbitration is4.3.3 The dispute can easily be resolved with monetary compensation4.3.4 Lack of precedent and publicity4.4 Discussion: Do clients perceive that they could challenge a bank in a dispute?4.4.1 Clients generally believed that everything is regulated4.4.2 Clients’ experiences generally do not deviate from the regulated boundaries4.4.3 Generally, there are few disputes between private bank and their clients4.4.4 Key features in arbitration are preferred by clients4.5 Conclusion: The more I know, the more I find out what I don’t haveCHAPTER 5 THE TRANSFORMATION OF DISPUTES5.1 Introduction: The importance of the client’s perspective5.2 Clients prevent naming5.2.1 The dispute is unlikely to happen within the scope of the contract5.2.2 Clients contribute significantly to ensure grievances do not happen5.2.3 The conduct of the private banker is the source of grievance5.3 Clients take the blame5.3.1 Clients do not rely on one single bank5.3.2 Lack of transparency of bank’s internal dispute resolution mechanism5.3.3 Clients may not blame if the mistakes result in benefiting clients5.4 Clients ask, or leave5.4.1 Clients rely on the bank’s reactions in resolving a dispute5.4.2 Clients prefer courtroom resolution5.4.3 Leaving the bank is a better choice than challenging the bank5.5 What hinders the formation of a dispute?5.5.1 Grievance does not come from a breach of contractual terms5.5.2 The role of the regulator in building bank–customer relationships5.5.3 The role of the private banker in dispute formation5.6 ConclusionCHAPTER 6 THE SELF-CORRECTIVE MECHANISM FOR DISPUTE ‘ELIMINATION’6.1 Introduction: The role of power in dispute transformation6.2 A self-corrective mechanism and its prerequisites6.2.1 Definition of the self-corrective mechanism6.2.2 Prerequisites of the self-corrective mechanism6.2.3 Why the self-corrective mechanism occurs among the wealthy?6.3 Common mentalities concerning the self-corrective mechanism6.3.1 Prevention is better than cure: Prevent naming6.3.2 Clients blame themselves, not shame the bank6.3.3 Fulfilling regulatory requirements vs protecting clients?6.3.4 Concern arising from a bank as arbitrator6.4 Contribution to the scholarship6.4.1 Presenting the three-stage method6.4.2 Uncovering the phenomenon of a client’s self-corrective mechanism for dispute elimination6.4.3 Offer insights into how ADR is perceived by private banking clients6.4.4 Identify factors that hinder the use of arbitration6.5 Recommendations for further research6.5.1 Examine banker’s behaviour6.5.2 Conduct comparative studies between different jurisdictions6.5.3 To test the factors of the self-corrective mechanism6.6 Final remarks – why even the wealthy don’t sueAnnex I: Sample Questions for InterviewAnnex II: The Online SurveyAnnex III: Legal reference – Ordinances, case laws, and regulationsReferencesIndex
이용현황보기
가상서가
도서위치안내: 법률정보센터(206호) / 서가번호: 4,5,6
우편복사 목록담기를 완료하였습니다.
* 표시는 필수사항 입니다.
* 주의: 국회도서관 이용자 모두에게 공유서재로 서비스 됩니다.
저장 되었습니다.
로그인을 하시려면 아이디와 비밀번호를 입력해주세요. 모바일 간편 열람증으로 입실한 경우 회원가입을 해야합니다.
공용 PC이므로 한번 더 로그인 해 주시기 바랍니다.
아이디 또는 비밀번호를 확인해주세요
