金融科技領(lǐng)域的“好創(chuàng)新”與“壞創(chuàng)新”

The etymology of “innovation” goes back to the 1540s and the Latin word “innovatus” meaning to “introduce as new”. The root implies no judgment on whether the thing being introduced is good or bad. These days, however, innovation has positive connotations — at least if the sheer volume of government initiatives sponsoring innovation is anything to go by.

“創(chuàng)新”一詞的詞源可以追溯至1540年代的拉丁文“innovatus”，意思是“引入新事物”。從詞根可以看出，該詞對被引入的事物并未給出好或壞的判斷。但如今，創(chuàng)新被賦予了正面涵義——至少從支持創(chuàng)新的政府倡議的龐大規(guī)模來看是如此。

But thinking of innovation in this way is naive. As any police officer will testify, criminals are among the most innovative people on the planet. And it is rare for their innovations to be deemed socially beneficial.

然而，以這種方式理解創(chuàng)新是幼稚的。正如任何一名警官都可以證實，犯罪分子是這個星球上最具創(chuàng)新精神的群體之一，雖然他們的創(chuàng)新極少被視為對社會有利。

Good innovation must therefore be differentiated from bad. And one area in which this is becoming abundantly clear is the fast expanding high-tech financial service industry, colloquially known as “fintech”. Fintech innovators boast their technologies are making financial services more convenient, more inclusive and more competitive, all the while bringing down costs.

因此，必須把好的創(chuàng)新與壞的創(chuàng)新區(qū)分開來。而在快速擴張的高科技金融服務(wù)業(yè)，俗稱“金融科技”(fintech)，這一點正變得非常明顯。金融科技領(lǐng)域的創(chuàng)新人士自詡他們的技術(shù)正在讓金融服務(wù)變得更便利、覆蓋范圍更廣、更具競爭力，同時不斷推低成本。

But the spike in digital financial crime accompanying the frictionless payments systems these technologies promote suggests criminals may be innovating as quickly, if not quicker. For now at least, more fintech equals more “crimtech”. And that is a big problem for the sector as a whole.

然而，伴隨這些技術(shù)推動的無障礙支付系統(tǒng)而出現(xiàn)的數(shù)字金融犯罪也在飆升，這表明犯罪分子可能在以同樣快(如果不是更快)的速度創(chuàng)新。至少目前來看，更多的金融科技意味著更多的“犯罪科技”。這對整個行業(yè)都是一個大問題。

Of particular concern is the phenomenon of “transaction laundering”. Think of the cost savings brought about by e-commerce and mobile app services for the legitimate e-retailing sector and then apply them to the world of money laundering. Whereas an old-school money launderer would face the headache of managing a bricks-and-mortar front business to launder his illicit profits, today’s online criminals need only set up a bogus online website to achieve the same effect, or else partner — on a commission basis — with a legitimate e-retailer prepared to process their illicit transactions.

尤為令人擔憂的是“交易洗錢”現(xiàn)象。想想電商、移動APP服務(wù)為合法的電子零售業(yè)節(jié)約了多少成本，再想想用它們進行洗錢結(jié)果會怎樣。傳統(tǒng)的洗錢者面臨的難題是利用實體的掩護企業(yè)來洗白非法獲利，如今的網(wǎng)絡(luò)犯罪分子只需搭建一個假冒網(wǎng)站就能獲得同樣效果，或者以抽取傭金的方式與愿意處理其非法交易的合法電子零售商合作。

Such front businesses, financial security experts say, are incredibly hard for banks, acquirers and third-party processors to detect. All the more so when transaction laundering techniques split high-value transactions into many small ones across multiple fronts, in a way that makes them look legitimate.

金融安全專家表示，銀行、收單機構(gòu)和第三方處理機構(gòu)很難發(fā)現(xiàn)這些掩護企業(yè)。如果交易洗錢技術(shù)將大額交易在多個掩護平臺上分成許多小額交易(讓它們看上去合法)就更難發(fā)現(xiàn)了。

Research by payments consultant First Annapolis from February this year estimated that traffic from undisclosed websites bearing illicit goods and services was now as high on average as 10 per cent of legitimate websites. Facilitating all this, it added, was the proliferation of payment platforms, payment facilitator models for quick client subscription, instant website creation technology, as well as inexpensive hosting.

支付咨詢機構(gòu)First Annapolis今年2月的研究估計，未被曝光的載有非法商品和服務(wù)的網(wǎng)站的流量，現(xiàn)在平均是合法網(wǎng)站的10%。該研究還顯示，為這一切提供便利的是支付平臺數(shù)量激增、供客戶快速注冊的便捷支付模式、快速搭建網(wǎng)站的技術(shù)以及較便宜的服務(wù)器托管費用。

With the costs so low, there are few obstacles to criminals seeking to set up their own transaction laundering fronts. Add identity fraud to the mix, and criminals might not even have to put their own reputation at risk.

由于成本如此之低，犯罪分子設(shè)法自建交易洗錢掩護平臺幾乎毫無障礙。如果再利用身份欺詐，犯罪分子甚至不必冒聲譽受損的風險。

The fintech sector, predictably, is adamant the industry will be able to offer the solutions to many of these problems. But as Lisa Osofsky, a global regulatory and financial crime compliance consultant at Exiger, explained to me, the challenge remains one of trade-offs. More compliance by and large comes along with additional cost and inconvenience to customers. That in turn puts a heavy burden on those in financial services responsible for policing transactions, especially when they don’t consider themselves police officers.

可以想見，金融科技業(yè)會堅持認為，該行業(yè)能夠為其中的許多問題提供解決方案。但正如Exiger全球監(jiān)管與金融犯罪合規(guī)咨詢顧問麗薩•奧索夫斯基(Lisa Osofsky)向我解釋的那樣，挑戰(zhàn)依然是如何取舍的問題?？偟膩碚f，更多合規(guī)會帶來額外成本，并給客戶造成不便。這進而會給金融服務(wù)機構(gòu)負責監(jiān)管交易的人員帶來沉重負擔，尤其他們并不把自己當成警察。

“It’s very expensive to be the gatekeeper,” Ms Osofsky said. “Think of aeroplane travel, it’s the same sort of thing. There are always trade-offs with more security.”

“作監(jiān)管者代價很高，”奧索夫斯基表示，“想想坐飛機旅行，這是一回事。為了更安全總得犧牲其他方面。”

For now, the popular “low-cost” solution remains outsourcing verification and identity checks to third-party innovators. But with the number of companies in this sector proliferating, the question is whose responsibility will it be to watch and verify the watchers?

目前，頗受歡迎的“低成本”解決方案仍是把驗證和身份核實外包給第三方創(chuàng)新機構(gòu)。但隨著該行業(yè)公司數(shù)量的激增，誰來負責監(jiān)督并驗證這些監(jiān)督者?