Is investment detriment not regarded as consumer injury?

Our government calls for a public comment regarding the draft of the Consumer Safety Law and relating regulation. It is in terms of jurisdiction of the Consumer Agency: concerning law for founding the agency already were passed on the diet on 29th March 2009 and the agency will start to work on this September.

 

However, the draft does not describe an investment injury as a consumer detriment, therefore the agency will not regulate the injury. Probably, the government may think those injuries are treated by the jurisdictional ministries: securities trouble is through FSA and futures is through METI and AFM. 

 

However, I cannot agree with this proposal.

 

First of all, it is recognized generally that the injury over these financial services injury detriment is regarded as a consumer detriment. Those detriment show a large share of consumer injuries. If the agency does not treat those fields, the role of the agency shall be diminished. 

 

Secondary, a consumer detriment in those fields shall be solved more efficiently, if the agency regulate it.  Whilst these ministries have been playing their role in consumer protection, the consumer protection may be restricted by the demand of feeding their jurisdictional business sectors. The Consumer Agency has not jurisdictional business sectors; the aim of the agency is mainly to protect consumers. It can be expected that consumer protection may improve in these fields more and more, if the agency has a jurisdiction.