2008年金融危機的爆發是管制失敗的最佳例證。當危機在管制鬆散的環境中逐漸形成時，管制者仍對經濟前景抱持樂觀態度，怠於採取任何行動去防範危機。管制者的不作為彰顯出：在管制過程中，若僅是賦予管制者更多權利，並不足以預防另一次危機的發生。為達此一目的，私人執行的機制也必須加強。私人執行的概念在臺灣法學界並不常被提及。除了澄清此一概念外，本文並從兩個例子出發，檢視私人執行在後金融危機管制體制中的現狀。本文認為，美國吹哨者法制的發展與臺灣常見的檢舉制度，其間最大的差異在於對於私人執行的重視。因此對於吹哨者法制的適當引進絕不能忽略私人發動權的角色。就私人訴權而言，2011年12月施行的金融消費者保護法以及施行近十年的證券投資人及期貨交易人保護法，都為了便於私人的快速取償，而弱化了私人訴權。本文強調，私人執行的肯認在臺灣嚴重地被忽略，而亟待強化。

The eruption of financial crisis of 2008 represents a prime example of regulatory failure. While the crisis was being brewed in a loosely regulated environment, regulators continued to be optimistic about the economic prospect and chose to do nothing to prevent it. The regulatory inaction has made it clear that more power rendered to regulators alone in the re-regulation process cannot stop another crisis from happening. Private enforcement mechanism should also be reinforced for this purpose.The concept of private enforcement is seldom mentioned in Taiwan’s legal scholarship. In addition to articulate this concept, this article further takes two examples to examine the status quo of private enforcement in Taiwan’s post-crisis financial regulatory environment. It suggests that emphasis on private enforcement be the major difference between the evolution of US whistleblower statutes and Taiwan’s law on private report of legal violations to authorities. The borrowing of the whistleblower statutes cannot be adequately done without taking into full account the private right of initiation. In terms of private right of action, both the Financial Consumer Protection Law, enacted this January, and the decade-long Investor Protection Law have weakened it in exchange for the easier pursuit of private remedy. As this article argues, the acknowledgement of private enforcement is badly neglected and strongly needed in Taiwan.