On November 26, 2025, CIEL Director, Vice President Wang-Ruu Tseng , delivered the opening remarks at the “Sustainable Finance and Financial Regulation Seminar,” setting the tone for the event. CIEL Deputy Directors Chao-Hung Chen and @Yueh-Ping (Alex) Yang also served as speakers, sharing insights on sustainable finance from the perspectives of legal frameworks, disclosure mechanisms, and regulatory tools.

Deputy Director Chen, presenting on “Indirectly Regulating Corporate Sustainability through Financial Institutions,” highlighted that while using financial institutions to restrict capital flows or influence market participants can achieve policy goals, it also raises challenges regarding legitimacy, legal applicability, costs, and governance. Indirect regulation should complement direct regulation, rather than making financial institutions an overly relied-upon policy instrument.

Deputy Director Yang, in his presentation titled “Reassessing Securities Fraud Regulation through Sustainability Disclosure,” emphasized that most sustainability disclosures are not directly related to securities fraud and are primarily addressed through administrative mechanisms. However, sustainability disclosures provide an opportunity to revisit the distinction between securities fraud and financial misrepresentation rules, as well as the interpretation of several key elements such as materiality, transaction causation, and fraud on the market theory.

The seminar brought together experts from academia, government, and industry to explore sustainable finance from multiple angles. CIEL will continue to actively participate in discussions and research on sustainable finance, working alongside stakeholders to advance a more robust legal and regulatory framework.

The roundtable session was moderated by CIEL CEO Chung-Chia Huang, joined by panelists Deputy Director Chao-Hung Chen, Deputy Director Yueh-Ping Yang, Prof. Ying-Shin Tsai, and Assoc. Prof. Yi-Chen Lai.

Legal Characterization of Tokenization

CEO Chung-Chia Huang opened the discussion by raising a core question: Should the legal nature of tokens be determined by the underlying rights they represent or by the electronic records on the blockchain itself? Deputy Director Chen opined that tokens often sit between claims and property rights, functioning more like “value carriers.” He noted that the current international trend increasingly relies on the concept of “control” to determine ownership. This elevates the role of system operators in identifying and transferring rights. Deputy Director Yang observed that domestic courts tend to treat tokens as movables, while academics consider them intangible assets; the legal categorization remains unsettled. Associate Prof. Lai further reminded the audience that whether tokens possess exclusive control is still unclear—reflecting the ongoing evolution of their legal nature.

Regulatory Adjustments and Tokenized Payment Instruments

On the regulatory front, panelists emphasized the need to consider emerging risks within the existing legal and regulatory framework. Deputy Director Yang explained that if a tokenized payment instrument retains its original functional characteristics, existing regulations may continue to apply. However, when market volatility, ledger unpredictability, or anonymity introduce new risks, regulatory reinforcement becomes necessary. Many jurisdictions regulate stablecoins under frameworks similar to electronic payments, illustrating this approach. He also noted that tokenized payments exert limited impact on monetary policy, as funds ultimately settle back within the banking system.

Cross-Border Finality and AML Challenges

During the open Q&A, participants first asked how to determine finality in cross-border transactions. Deputy Director Yang explained that if a single stablecoin dominates the market, its issuer can define finality within its system. However, in a more diverse market, financial institutions probably can negotiate common principles to define finality through contracts. Globally, two approaches coexist: one relying on the distributed ledger itself as the basis for finality, and another centered on “control,” which is conceptually closer to possession.

Regarding AML, when smart contracts automatically settle transactions to blacklisted addresses, risk allocation often depends on contractual arrangements. However, if blacklist information relies on international databases, information asymmetry may arise—posing an important regulatory challenge for Taiwan.

Global Trends in Tokenization

Finally, audience asked about international use cases and trends for tokenizing financial and non-financial assets. Deputy Director Chen noted that global regulation remains fragmented, with high-value financial assets more likely to be tokenized first. Assoc. Prof. Lai highlighted Japan’s experimentation with lower-value assets—such as alcohol products, GameFi items, and hotel usage rights—to reduce public concerns, suggesting that tokenization may expand gradually from everyday-use scenarios.

CIEL will continue advancing research on RWA, tokenized payment instruments, and Web 3.0 financial regulation. Through interdisciplinary analysis across civil law, criminal law, financial regulation, and international standards, we aim to offer concrete policy recommendations. Our goal is to help Taiwan build a corporate legal framework that balances innovation with stability amid rapid technological and regulatory transformation, while strengthening CIEL’s role as a key platform for industry–government–academia dialogue and legal innovation.

The second session of the seminar was led by Professor Yueh-Ping Yang , Deputy Director of CIEL, with Professor Ying-Hsin Tsai as discussant. The session focuses on “Tokenization of Payment Instruments”. The seminar provided an in-depth analysis of the institutional framework, risks and future regulatory directions of payment tokenization from comparative perspectives.

Operation Models and Risks of Stablecoins
Professor Yang noted that stablecoins share many characteristics with tokenized forms of e-money. Using the distinction between primary and secondary markets, he explained the legal structure of stablecoins: while subscription and redemption in stablecoin’s primary market resemble e-money, stablecoin’s secondary-market circulation is beyond the offeror’s control and more depends on virtual asset service providers. As a result, stablecoin faces new risks in addition to that of e-money in areas such as AML compliance, ledger governance, and price de-pegging.

Global Regulatory Trends: Comparative Observations
Professor Yang further outlined global developments in stablecoin regulation. Jurisdictions such as Japan and Singapore regulate stablecoins under their payment laws, while the EU treats stablecoins as a form of e-money token. The United States, lacking a federal-level payment law, sometimes tend to conceptualize stablecoins as deposit-like products.

Japan’s Regulatory Design and Industry Strategy
Professor Tsai added that Japan pioneered a dedicated legal framework for stablecoins in 2022, placing it at the global forefront. Using JPYC’s yen-denominated stablecoin as an example, she explained that its reserve assets primarily consist of government bonds and cash. She also highlighted how Japanese banks are actively building tokenization infrastructure through the Progmat platform. Nonetheless, tokenization also introduces challenges for banks, including reduced fee income, more complex liquidity management, and diminished control over data.

Regulatory Directions in the Tokenization Era
Professor Tsai emphasized that regardless of stablecoins, deposit tokens, or CBDCs, the core of future payment instruments will remain in the hands of financial institutions and central banks. Payment tokenization compels regulatory frameworks to rethink functionality, risks, and responsibility allocation. As the system continues to evolve, cross-disciplinary collaboration and forward-looking planning will be crucial for Taiwan as it navigates global fintech transformation.

Amid the rapid evolution of global fintech, key questions persist: how can regulatory frameworks balance innovation and stability, and how should they address cross-border supervision challenges brought by new forms of payment instruments? CIEL will continue advancing research in these areas, striving to help shape a forward-looking and resilient legal framework for Taiwan.

The NTU Center for Innovative Enterprise Law (CIEL) commits to overcome the legal challenges faced by enterprises amid rapid technological change and market development. This year’s seminar, themed “Web 3.0 Finance and Regulatory Innovation,” explored the potential impacts of tokenization on asset markets and payment systems, and proposed future directions for Taiwan’s legal and regulatory frameworks.

Session I featured a talk by CIEL Deputy Director Prof. Christopher Chen with Associate Professor Yi-Chen Lai from Tohoku University being the discussant. The session focuses on “Real World Asset (RWA) Tokenization”, with following take-aways:

Legal Foundations of RWA Tokenization: Rights and Value Represented by Tokens

Deputy Director Chen highlights that tokenization of assets follows the long history of using legal instruments to represent underlying assets, rights, or value. To understand legal infrastructure of asset tokenization, one can explore legal techniques applicable to various kinds of securities and instruments that may represent a variety of assets, rights or values. In turn, the nature of underlying assets or values might affect legal underpinnings of ‘real-work assets’ and subsequent issues of transaction design, legal validity, and risk allocation.

Balancing Technological Advantages and Legal Risks

While technological and tokenization of assets may offer some benefits such as transactional efficiency and fractionalization of ownership, Dr Chen cautioned that there could also be new legal issues and challenges facing RWAs that require solution in the future, no matter it is based on private ordering or requires legal clarifications in statutes.

Nuanced Classification of Rights and Its Implications

Dr Chen further examined how assets, rights, or value can be integrated into legal instruments, which in turn determines the liquidity of the assets represented by the token. Building on this, the nature of the rights embodied in an asset token directly affects the applicable legal framework. Whether tokenization should fall within the domain of private autonomy or requires explicit legislative intervention remains an important policy question.

International Insights and Forward-Looking Issues

Deputy Director Chen highlighted that RWA-related law and policy can draw from existing regulatory structures and international developments. Associate Professor Lai noted that practice field in Japan have already conducted pilot projects involving gold, sake, and other assets, raising debates over token legal characterization, asset transfer, and rights enforcement. Assoc. Prof. Lai further posed a thought-provoking question: if RWAs begin to represent personal attributes, identity categories, or other status-related characteristics, what legal issues would arise? This underscores the high malleability of RWAs and the accompanying regulatory uncertainty, reinforcing the importance of sustained research in fintech law.

The session concluded successfully, further reinforcing CIEL’s direction to advancing research on RWA and fintech regulatory frameworks, with the hope of contributing forward-looking insights to Taiwan’s future legal innovation.

On October 16-18, 2025, CIEL Deputy Director Prof. Yueh-Ping (Alex) Yang attended the annual meeting of the American Society of Comparative Law (ASCL) and its Younger Comparativist Committee (YCC), as YCC’s Co-Director, hosted in McGill University Faculty of Law, Canada. Prof. Yang further presented on “The Comparative Digital Asset Regulation and the Lesson for the United States.”

Prof. Yang began by quoting the statement of SEC’s Chair, Paul Atkins, that the U.S. is 10 year behind in digital asset regulation. He reviewed the rapid evolution of the digital asset market over the past decade and the regulatory issues related to ICOs, NFTs, stablecoins, the FTX collapse, Bitcoin ETFs, etc. Based on these reviews, he put forward a framework for classifying various digital asset regulatory issues and compared the different coverage in Japan, the EU, the UK, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

Based on the comparative analyses, Prof. Yang identified the development in various digital asset regulatory issues in the U.S. and analyzed the regulatory fragmentation by the SEC, CFTC, and other federal regulators. He proposed that the U.S. needs a comprehensive digital asset law to consolidate the needed regulations for offerors, market participants, and other business operators and clarify the respective role of each primary regulator.

Prof. Yang began to serve as ASCL YCC’s Co-Director in 2024 and will continue this position until 2026. CIEL will continue to support ASCL and YCC in that capacity, collaborating with comparativists in the U.S. and the world and encouraging studies by young comparativists.

On November 3, 2025, CIEL had the honor of welcoming Professor Deborah Kay Burand from New York University School of Law (NYU Law) for an academic exchange with CIEL Associate Director Professor Yueh-Ping Yang and Professor Chao-Hung Chen. The discussion focused on key issues surrounding sustainable finance and impact investing.

Linking Sustainable Finance Education and Market Practice
The professors agreed that sustainable finance education should go beyond institutional and regulatory frameworks. A genuine understanding of market mechanisms, transaction structures, and stakeholder motivations is essential to grasp the full picture of sustainable finance. Legal education, therefore, should move beyond a purely doctrinal focus to engage with real-world market practices and cultivate more comprehensive analytical skills.

Challenges in Scaling Impact Investing
As impact investing expands, it faces the risk of drifting away from its original mission. Professor Burand emphasized the importance of addressing “impact risk.” Taking microfinance as an example, she noted that without thoughtful design, it may inadvertently increase burdens on intended beneficiaries. Defining, measuring, and managing such risks remains a shared challenge for both academia and industry.

Opportunities and risks of integrating AI into governance
Professor Burand also shared insights on how international sovereign wealth funds are integrating AI to enhance due diligence, data verification, and consistency monitoring. While AI offers analytical advantages, it is gradually evolving from a supporting tool to a decision-shaping force—posing new governance and accountability challenges for future investment management.

The exchange also highlighted Taiwan’s positioning in sustainable finance research. Professor Burand encouraged CIEL to continue strengthening cross-border collaborations and developing case-based research, enabling Taiwan’s academic contributions to gain greater international visibility. CIEL will continue to expand international engagement, foster interdisciplinary dialogue, and integrate theoretical and practical perspectives to actively shape global conversations and advance the long-term vision of sustainable development.

On November 3, 2025, CIEL was honored to welcome Professor Florence G’Sell from Stanford Law School for an academic exchange. She engaged in an in-depth dialogue with CIEL Deputy Director Professor Yueh-Ping Yang and Professor Chao-Hung Chen on the current developments of virtual assets, artificial intelligence, and other aspects of digital laws, examined through comparative perspectives from Europe, the United States, and Asia.

🔹 Trends in Virtual Asset Regulation Across Asia
Asian jurisdictions exhibit divergent regulatory approaches to virtual assets. Japan was among the first to establish rules for stablecoins; Singapore adopts a principles-based regulatory model; Hong Kong adopts a comprehensive and rigorous framework; and South Korea continues to show a high level of regulatory attention toward virtual assets. In Taiwan, the government is actively promoting the Virtual Asset Service Act, which covers virtual asset service providers, stablecoins, and other related issues, and it is expected to be submitted to the Legislative Yuan for deliberation.

🔹 Differences in Regulatory Cultures Across Europe, the U.S., and Asia
Europe adopts a rule-based approach with comprehensive regulatory frameworks for virtual assets and artificial intelligence. However, its implementation progresses relatively slowly due to differences among its member states.The United States tends to be market-driven, with a relatively light-touch or deregulatory stance. Asia, by contrast, could be viewed as taking a middle-ground approach between Europe and the U.S., featuring pragmatic and hybrid regulatory strategies that balance flexibility and efficiency—making the region particularly significant for comparative legal studies in this area.

🔹 The Future Integration of Blockchain and AI
The integration of blockchain and AI can be seen as an next-generation model of existing blockchain-smart contract integrations, which has the potential to enhance the capabilities of both technologies. However, it may also introduce greater uncertainty, less explainability, and increased legal liability challenges.

CIEL will continue to closely follow developments in technological innovation and legal governance, foster international academic exchanges and collaboration, and contribute to forward-looking research and policy discussions.

On October 27, 2025, CIEL was honored to host Professor LAU Kwan Ho from the School of Law at Singapore Management University, who visited the Center for an in-depth dialogue with CIEL Deputy Director Professor Yang Yue-Ping.

This exchange focused primarily on several observations regarding the legal frameworks for international commercial dispute resolution.

Developments and Challenges in International Commercial Dispute Resolution

The two professors first exchanged insights on the experiences of Singapore and Taiwan in promoting mechanisms for international commercial dispute resolution. Their discussion covered the challenges currently faced by the Singapore International Commercial Court and the underlying causes, further extending to the importance of enforceability in international commercial dispute resolution.

Geopolitical Confrontations and New Challenges in International Commercial Dispute Resolution

Against the backdrop of global geopolitical tensions and supply chain restructuring, the two professors discussed how geopolitics may affect international commercial dispute resolution — including the types of commercial disputes arising from economic sanctions and the potential impact of political antagonism on specific issues of international commercial arbitration, such as the appointment of arbitrators.

CIEL will continue to closely follow developments in international commercial law and dispute resolution and foster the dialogues between different jurisdictions and regions.

On October 22, 2025, CIEL was honored to welcome Professor Catherine Malecki from Rennes 2 University, France, for an academic exchange with Professor Yueh-Ping Yang , Deputy Director of CIEL, on recent developments in sustainable corporate governance and market regulation in Europe. Professor Malecki also delivered a guest lecture in Deputy Director Professor Chao-Hung Chen’s class on Financial Law.

◆Progress of Sustainable Governance in Europe
As the world has become more concerned of sustainability issues, the EU’s framework for sustainable finance and corporate governance has become more comprehensive in recent years. Nevertheless, a balance must still be struck between complexity and enforceability, in order to provide companies with predictable and enforceable standards to follow.

◆The French Experience
Among the EU’s recent sustainability-related initiatives, including the widely discussed Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), their legal prototype originated largely in France. France has established detailed domestic legislation and self-regulatory standards to implement the relatively abstract EU directives and regulations in this field. The influence of France’s sustainability rules on EU’s sustainability laws is, therefore, a subject deserving greater attention in comparative legal studies.

◆Taiwan’s Perspective
In recent years, Taiwan has advanced a series of corporate sustainability frameworks, including the Sustainability Taxonomy and ESGInfoHub, drawing largely from the EU model. Moreover, as Taiwan plays a key role in the global supply chain, the EU’s sustainability regulations exert a profound impact on Taiwanese enterprises. Given France’s role as a driving force behind EU’s sustainability laws, continued dialogue and exchange with France’s experience is of great value to Taiwan.

CIEL will continue to deepen interdisciplinary dialogue on sustainable corporate governance, compliance, and financial supervision, laying a solid legal foundation for corporate sustainability transitions.

On October 21, 2025, CIEL was pleased to welcome Professor Nizan Geslevich Packin, jointly appointed at the City University of New York and University of Haifa, to the center for academic exchange. CIEL’s Deputy Director, Professor Yueh-Ping  Yang, engaged in an in-depth discussion with Professor Packin on corporate governance and financial technology regulation, with a focused dialogue on three major topics: prediction markets, open banking, and crypto-assets.

Prediction Markets: Blurred Regulatory Boundaries
Professor Packin shared her recent research on prediction markets, highlighting how prediction markets and online gaming platforms seek to redefine themselves as financial services or futures market providers, thereby avoiding traditional gambling regulations. She further shared examples from the United States, including market operators acquiring shares in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) and interactions with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—trends that may reshape the regulatory landscape in the future.

Open Banking: The Political Economy of Data-Sharing Governance
Deputy Director Yang shared his recent work on open banking, noting that his research draws on Professor Packin’s previous scholarship in the field. The dialogue extended to developments in the EU and Australia, and particularly the shifting stance of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) regarding open banking—especially the political considerations behind data-sharing fees and access rights.

Crypto-Assets: The Balance Between Innovation and Oversight
Professor Packin shared her perspectives to be presented at FinTech Taipei 2025, and both scholars exchanged views on the regulatory rationales surrounding crypto-assets, including stablecoins. Professor Packin expressed regulatory concerns regarding the inherent risks of the crypto asset market and stablecoins, while Professor Yang shared his observation of Taiwan’s regulatory stances and evolving regulatory framework in this domain.

CIEL will continue to closely monitor the intersection of financial regulation and technological innovation and promote dialogues and collaborations between international scholars and global academic networks.