节点文献
论我国台湾地区内幕交易罪
The Crime of Insider Trading in Taiwan
【作者】 周钦逢;
【导师】 刘宪权;
【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 , 刑法学, 2013, 博士
【摘要】 我国台湾地区证券交易市场起步甚早,自1962年成立“台湾证券交易所”、1968年颁布我国台湾地区《证券交易法》以来,已经过60余年,随着我国台湾地区经济的发展、社会的变化和时代的进步,我国台湾地区《证券交易法》共经历了17次修改。我国台湾地区《证券交易法》第1条明确规定证券交易应以“发展国民经济,并保障投资”为目的,为达此一目的,有个稳定的证券市场就显的格外重要。而我国台湾地区为维持证券市场的稳定下了许多功夫,努力防范危害发生。笔者认为,在诸多破坏证券市场稳定性的犯罪中,内幕交易罪无疑是其中成本最小,危害最大的犯罪。所谓内幕交易,是指掌握内幕信息的人,利用内幕信息进行证券交易,目的是获取利益或减少损失。公正的证券市场应该具备以下3个特点:1.能够使投资者最大程度地获得市场信息;2.证券价格能够迅速、准确地反映市场信息;3.通过市场使证券价值得到正确的评价。而内幕交易行为是利用一般投资者所不知道的信息获取实际利益,是一种证券市场上严重的违规行为,不仅违背证券市场的公平、公正、公开之三公原则,还严重影响市场效率,导致投资者对证券市场的不信任,不利于证券交易市场的正常运作。观诸各国对于禁止内幕交易的规定普遍存在,但理论依据各不相同,我国台湾地区亦有其独特的理论体系,本文第一章就理论方面予以阐述。我国台湾地区关于禁止内幕交易的学说共有五种,具体分述如下:第一、市场论(又称“健全市场理论”)。该理论认为:从市场总体的观点予以观察,以促进信息流通、促进资源合理配置、提升证券市场效率为基础,投资人应有平等获取信息的权利,从而维持公平交易。因内幕交易违反此一原则,将严重损害投资人信心,影响市场健全发展,故必须加以禁止。第二、义务论(又称“信赖关系理论”)。该理论认为:对公司而言,“内部人”如董事、监察人、经理人等,对于公司及其股东都负有信赖义务。在此前提下,如果内部人利用公司的内幕信息,在股市中为自己牟利,等于将自己的利益优先置于公司与股东之上,违背信赖义务,应受到禁止。第三、私取理论。该理论认为:当行为人违背了其对于消息来源的信赖义务,而将消息私自取用于股票的买卖之上,就构成了内幕交易罪。第四、特别关系理论。该理论认为:只要是具有某种“特殊关系”而可以获取或接触公司内部信息,而该内部信息仅供公司事务用途而非属私人性质,并且利用这些信息与不知情的他人进行交易会产生先天的不公平,即属于必须禁止的内幕交易行为。第五、信息优势理论。该理论认为:只有当交易参与者所拥有的信息优势,是其它交易者再怎么勤奋努力,都无法以合法的手段克服时,交易者才会感受到真正的不公平,才是内幕交易应该禁止的信息。笔者认为义务论、私取理论及绝对的市场论都有缺陷。并提出以特别关系理论为主,信息优势理论为辅的市场论。亦即,任何人接触到内幕信息,都必须以其与消息来源之间的特别关系为前提,才有受到内幕交易规范的正当性。所谓的特别关系,指的是行为人凭借与发行公司、公开收购公司、或者是其它消息来源之间的特殊链接,而产生的经常性之消息联络渠道。当行为人是通过此种关系而取得信息优势时,此一信息优势就必须被禁止,从而行为人利用此信息优势进行的交易行为,就应被视为内幕交易。为使证券市场维持稳定、公平及合理,我国台湾地区自1988年在《证券交易法》增订第157条之一“禁止内幕交易之规定”后,因内幕交易罪构成要件充斥着许多不确定的法律概念以及经济刑法原本就存在的侦查困境,增加了法院定罪量刑的难度,致使犯罪嫌疑人得以脱逃法律制裁,严重影响了证券市场的公平性,造成社会大众的不信任,一度引起国民经济的恐慌。有鉴于此,进入21世纪后,我国台湾地区立法者参考了证券主管机关的建议、学说理论的建言及司法实务的判决,对此条文分别于2002年、2006年及2010年进行了3次重大修改,从而更好的为检察机关诉追及司法机关审判提供更确实的法律依据。虽然我国台湾地区立法者在完善内幕交易罪的构成要件上做出了相当多的努力,但仍存在许多漏洞,本文将从第二章至第五章分别就我国台湾地区内幕交易罪的主观犯意、犯罪主体、犯罪对象及客观等构成要件进行讨论,并就相关问题提出笔者的见解及理由。第二章就内幕交易罪的主观犯意,分以下二个部分进行探讨:第一、何谓知悉?笔者认为,知悉就是消息受领人明知消息传递人具有特殊身份。即消息受领人对于消息传递人的身份应有认识,甚至只要明知消息传递人很可能是法律规定之特定人,即为知悉。换言之,知悉不仅包含直接故意,间接故意也可成立。第二、行为人知悉消息后,是应利用才处罚还是持有即处罚?对此问题,笔者赞同利用说之观点。行为人知悉消息与交易行为间应有因果关系方可构成内幕交易,如果投资人早于知悉消息之前,已按拟定的投资计划、投资习惯进行交易或委托他人全权进行交易,并非因知悉消息而为股票之买卖,那么因其知悉消息就要求其禁止买卖股票,将使该投资人预先拟定之投资计划陷入停滞,实属过当。第三章就内幕交易罪的犯罪主体,分以下五个部分进行论述:第一、传统内部人,即公司董事、监察人、经理人,还包括我国台湾地区《公司法》第27条第一项规定的受指定代表公司行使职务之人及持有该公司股份超过百分之十之股东。第二、准内部人,即基于职业关系获悉消息之人及基于控制关系获悉消息之人。何谓“基于职业关系知悉消息”?笔者参酌学说理论及司法实务后提出:以职业内容有得以知悉消息之预见可能性为要件,但不应以该职业之执行与内部消息有直接关系为限,且行为人不以与上市公司股东具有信赖关系为限,只要基于其“职业关系”有机会获得上市公司之机密信息即可,包括政府监管机关之公务员。简言之,只要行为人取得未公开之机密消息是基于职业关系,皆应包含在本款范围之内。第三、原内部人,即公司内部人于丧失身份一定期间内,通常仍对公司之财务、业务有熟悉度或影响力,因此我国台湾地区《证券交易法》规定:「公司董事、监察人、经理人、大股东及基于职业或控制关系之人,于丧失身分后6个月仍视为公司内部人。同时若前述之人以其配偶、未成年子女或利用他人名义买卖公司股票者,亦有本条禁止内幕交易之适用。」第四、消息受领人,即我国台湾地区《证券交易法》第157条之一第一项第五款规定,从传统内部人、准内部人、原内部人知悉消息者,为消息受领人,将本款之人列为禁止之范围,将使得禁止内幕交易之层面更广,对于维持证券市场之健全与公平更具帮助。其中,有问题的是,消息受领人之范围是否包含间接受领人?笔者从法条文义、学说见解及实务见解分析后提出,消息受领人之责任并不以内部人违反义务而传递内幕信息为要件,只要消息受领人主观上能认识到该消息为重大影响股价且未公开,并利用此重大消息买卖股票,即已破坏证券市场之公平性,应予以规制,因此间接领人亦应包含在内。第五、配偶、未成年子女及利用他人名义持有者。其中,要如何判断为内部人利用他人名义持有证券之情形?简单来说,内部人与被利用账户间若同时具有供给关系、控制从属关系和损益归属关系,则该账户即可被认定为利用他人名义持有之账户。笔者认为,公司之董事、监察人、经理人及持有该公司股份超过百分之十的股东若利用他人名义持有股票,而有内幕交易之情形时,该公司内部人即负有内幕交易之责任。至于被利用人视其知情与否而论不同之责任,如被利用人与行为人间有犯意联络及行为分担,则应视为共同正犯;如被利用人虽知情,但仅提供账户供行为人使用而无犯意联络及行为分担,则视为帮助犯;如被利用人的账户是被盗用而不知情者,则不应论以刑责。第四章就内幕交易罪的犯罪客体进行论述。在我国台湾地区的刑法理论中,“犯罪客体”相当于我国大陆地区的犯罪对象。故本文第四章主要从犯罪对象的角度进行论述,为阅读方便,也将统一用“犯罪对象”进行表述。在本章中,何谓“其他具有股权性质的有价证券”是最大的争点。笔者参酌学说及实务见解后提出,只要有出席股东会、分配股息与剩余财产,及其它为保护少数股东权利的即属其它具有股权性质之有价证券。换言之,如系争有价证券并无投票权或基于股权所得享有之任何权利,则不属于内幕交易所规范的对象。第五章就内幕交易罪犯罪客观要件中的重大消息,为本论文的重点,分以下三个部分进行论述:第一、重大消息之判断。内幕消息的重大性是我们判断内幕交易罪成立与否中最重要也是最具争议性的构成要件,透过本文的分析可发现我国台湾地区司法实务对于消息重大性之判断,与美国TSC Indus. V. Northway, Inc.案所采取“所有事项对一个合理的股东而言可能被认为重要”及Basic Inc. V. Levinson案所采取“依事件发生之机率及事件之发生对于公司整体营运的影响程度两项因素综合判断”之标准相同,故本文将先分析此两案例,并就此两案例在台湾司法实务上的影响提出说明。我国台湾地区学说理论的通说认为在重大性的判断上应采取模糊标准才能够使法院于不同的个案事实上弹性运用,避免规范过度或规范不足的情形发生。然学说的通说见解笔者并不赞同,笔者提出应将重大消息的标准明确化。理由有三:1.明确后不但可使公司内部人了解何等消息应公开后方得交易,投资人亦更将信赖其公开消息的正确性,更能提高投资人对证券市场的信赖。2.内幕交易刑事责任甚高,以“重大消息之认定应保有一定程度之弹性”作为理由并不充分,概何种事由应公开方可交易,应明确地让公司与投资人知悉。3.可由立法机关授权主管机关配合时代潮流或证券市场动向并以列举方式随时修正。采列举方式或许有规范不足之处,但宁可因规范不足而不予处罚,亦不可因规范模糊而将人民绳之以内幕交易之罪。第二、重大消息之类型。我国台湾地区内幕交易所称重大影响股票价格之消息,是指涉及公司财务、业务及特定证券的市场供求、公开收购,其具体内容对特定股票的价格有重大影响,或对正当投资人之投资决定有重要影响的消息。而重大消息之类型,依我国台湾地区《重大消息管理办法》的规定可分为两类,第一类为涉及公司财务、业务之消息,第二类为涉及证券市场供求之消息,并且适用不同的公开方式。无论是“涉及公司财务、业务之消息”还是“特定证券市场供求之消息”,都必须达到“对公司股票价格有重大影响”,或“对正当投资人之投资决定有重要影响”的标准,方为内幕交易规范所禁止之对象。第三、重大消息之成立与公开时点的认定。重大消息成立时点制定之意义在于限定内部人不得于重大消息明确后,消息未公开前或公开后18小时内,买卖股票或其它具有股权性质之有价证券。在认定上,成立时点是采用“多元时点,时间在前”的方式计算。笔者认为,任何重大消息都有形成过程,且消息之成立,有时不待双方意见完全合致或是任何签约形式,若固守僵硬标准以形式化的标准认定消息成立之时点,认为程序尚未完成,消息尚未确定而非内幕信息,不仅过于僵化而恐悖离事实,甚至导致有人故意迟延消息成立时点或可能给予有影响力之内部人操纵时点之空间,为内幕交易的操作预留更多空间而使内幕交易判断上更为困难。对此问题,在分析学说理论及司法实务的各种观点后,笔者提出,重大消息成立及时点应考虑以下三个基准:1.重大性:成为违法内部人交易基础之消息,须将对投资人之投资决定造成显着影响;2.具体性:若公司内部已针对未来投资等各方面设立目标或跨进新领域作重大投资且因此将需大量增资,但投资方式、增资时间及规模等时程表尚未决定,这类消息并不具备具体性;3.确定性:做为违法内部人交易基础之消息,不能仅是单纯的想象或推测,若属于公司预估盈余之变动,虽为对未来发展的预测,仍必须以已发生之事实为基础所计算出的数字,方可以认为具确定性。重大影响股票价格之消息(即内幕信息)更应规范明确,立法者可以参考先进国家立法例及法院累积的判例,就相关消息之“重大性”、“具体性”及“确实性”逐一检视以为评断依据,将重大消息的抽象概念,予以“具体化”及“类型化”力求司法或行政解释上能更为清楚明确。第六章就内幕交易之法律责任,分以下二个部分进行探讨:第一、民事责任。有以下三个问题值得讨论:1.赔偿义务人。若赔偿义务人有多人时,彼此间是否应负连带赔偿责任?笔者认为,我国台湾地区《证券交易法》仅于第157条第四项规定消息传递人与消息受领人负连带赔偿责任,对于共同为内幕交易之数人,我国台湾地区《证券交易法》并无应负连带赔偿责任之规定,另依我国台湾地区《民法》第272条之规定,连带债务的成立,除债务人明示外,以法律有明文规定者为限,而我国台湾地区《证券交易法》第179条有关于行为之负责人代负公司之刑事责任的规定,负责人是否应负民事赔偿责任,则需另外判断。因此,为明确以避免争议,笔者提出,应直接于我国台湾地区《证券交易法》第157条之一第三项后段增订多人共同为内幕交易者,应负连带赔偿责任,以保护投资人之权益。2.请求权人。善意从事与内幕交易相反交易之人及公司都得对违反禁止内幕交易行为之赔偿义务人请求赔偿,其中有争议的是证券经纪商能否请求赔偿?笔者认为,按民法损害赔偿之原则,有损害才能请求赔偿,而证券经纪商虽为买卖合同之当事人,但因为证券经纪商仅受投资人之委托于证券交易市场为投资人进行股票之交易,并向投资人收取手续费,实际上并不承担股票买卖盈亏之利益及损失,所以证券经纪商并不会由于内幕交易而受到损害,证券经纪商既无损害之发生,自亦无法向行为人请求赔偿。3.赔偿金的计算方式。依我国台湾地区《证券交易法》第179条规定,违法之内部人交易,若其情节重大,法院得因善意从事相反买卖之人之请求,将责任限额提高至3倍。笔者认为,法院得将赔偿金额提高至3倍,此规定具有惩罚性质,若采取从宽认定,只要该行为人单纯未将消息公开,即属情节重大,对于行为人而言过于严苛,且在多数内幕交易案件中,行为人皆属于单纯未将消息公开之情形,这将导致提高3倍赔偿金将成为常态,而非立法理由中具有特殊情节时才得使用。为避免上述情况发生,笔者提出所谓情节重大应采取缩小解释,仅应在行为人以故意之手段来推迟内部消息之公开时,才属情节重大。第二、刑事责任。有以下三个问题值得讨论:1.计算犯罪所得之金额。我国台湾地区理论及实务界对此问题有以下三种不同观点:(1)拟制说。即以拟制交易所得为计算方式,此为参考我国台湾地区《证券交易法》第157条之一第二项民事赔偿责任之规定,以市场合理基准之交易价格,作为拟制交易所得计算方式之基础,而所谓市场合理基准之交易价格,是指重大消息公开后10日之平均价格。(2)因果关系说。主张以因果关系中断为基础,以因果关系作为认定依据,强调结果归责,行为人之行为与结果之发生具有因果关系时,此结果才能归责于行为人,故以因果关系中断之时点作为计算犯罪所得之基准,因为因果关系中断后之价格变动,皆与行为人无关,不能要求行为人负责。(3)区分说。若股票全数卖出则以实际卖出之金额减去买入之金额,若有获利即为犯罪所得;若股票未全数卖出,则以卖出股票之平均价扣除买入之平均价格为计算基础。笔者认为,因证券市场上影响股价变动之因素甚多,若依照一般刑事案件认定因果关系之方式来判断股价之涨跌是否与该重大消息之公开有因果关系,将会造成判断上之困难,故拟制交易所得之计算方式实为必要,但法院在实际个案判断上仍应考虑推论之合理性,应允许被告提出反证,证明消息公开后发生重大影响证券市场之情事,或有其它影响股价变动之因素,足以中断因果关系。而因为犯罪所得之金额涉及刑度高低,为避免因计算方式之不同,而导致有不同之量刑结果,基于公平性和法律明确性原则,笔者提出修改现有法律,明确规定以拟制交易所得作为认定犯罪所得金额之方式。2.共犯间应否合并计算犯罪所得。笔者提出,犯罪所得应限于行为人实际取自于犯罪之财产,如其它行为人通过合理合法途径所取得者应非犯罪所得,自不能合并计算而把他人所得视为自己的所得,否则即有失“所得”之意义。且内幕交易的犯罪形态是由投资人在受领重大消息后之交易行为,基本上行为人是自负盈亏,主观上并无与他人分享犯罪所得之意图。故若数行为人各自出资、自行买卖、自负盈亏之情况,实不宜合并计算犯罪所得。反之,如数行为人自始即共同决定交易价格、交易时点再共同分配犯罪所得,主观上有与他人分享犯罪所得之意图,其之所以分配由数行为人分别买卖,是为了归避证券主管机关的监管时,才应合并计算犯罪所得。3.行政责任替代刑事责任的可行性。笔者提出,虽然行政处罚处理迅速,可以快速达到制裁行为人之效果,不似刑事处罚要经过冗长的诉讼过程,但是以行政责任完全取代刑事责任似有不妥。由于内幕交易多属有预谋犯罪,相关罪证之发觉与搜集具有困难性,且我国台湾地区的行政机关不似司法机关有侦查之权限,因此在调查取证上比起司法机关更为困难,而如果行为人内幕交易之事实不能确定,依照我国台湾地区《行政程序法》第136条规定,行政机关得与行为人订定和解合同来代替行政处分,故行为人可以通过“买罪”来免除自己的法律责任。由此可见,单纯以行政处罚手段不足以达到遏制内幕交易之目的,但可以将行政处罚作为刑事处罚的补充手段。因此,笔者提出,应该于现行刑事责任与民事责任外,再引进行政责任,例如可将原来民事责任中赋予法官能视情节重大与否,将赔偿金提高至3倍的规定,改以行政罚款为之,因为此一规定若以民事责任为之,赔偿金明显高于投资人受损之程度,如此反而有使请求赔偿之投资人有不当得利之嫌,而行政罚款具有惩罚性质,既能达到遏制内幕交易犯罪之功效,又可避免出现赔偿请求人不当得利的局面。最后一章为结论。该章总结全文提出如何完善我国台湾地区内幕交易的建议,分以下三个部分进行探讨:第一、完善我国台湾地区内幕交易基础理论的建议。笔者所采的理论是以特别关系论为修正,信息优势论为辅助解释工具的市场论。亦即,任何人接触到内幕信息,都必须以其与消息来源之间的特别关系为前提,才有受到内幕交易规范的正当性。所谓的特别关系,指的是行为人与发行公司、公开收购公司、或者是其它消息来源之间的特殊链接,而产生的经常性之消息联络管道。当行为人是透过这样的关系而取得信息优势时,此信息优势就必须被禁止,从而行为人利用此信息优势而进行之交易行为,就会被论断为内幕交易。第二、完善我国台湾地区内幕交易罪构成要件的建议。此部分又可分为四个部分探讨:1.完善犯罪主观要件的建议:笔者赞同利用说,认为行为人知悉消息与交易行为间应有因果关系方可构成内幕交易,检察机关应举证证明投资人之交易行为与知悉消息之间有因果关系才得将行为人论以内幕交易之罪。2.完善犯罪主体要件的建议:对传统内部人而言,笔者建议删除董事、监察人及经理人之用语,改为居于公司行政、经营或监督地位之人,亦即应以实际工作职务内容作认定,而不单单以形式职称作认定。对于超过公司股份百分之十之股东而言,笔者建议,本规定既然是要保障投资大众之信息平等,则只要股东知悉公司未公开之机密信息,即应在内幕交易禁止范围之内,持股比例根本不是重点,建议删除持股数限制之规定。就准内部人而言,笔者认为就保护证券市场公平的立场,控制关系应扩大解释为具有控制关系之主体相互间,因有此关系存在而知悉消息之情形,不仅限于上对下支单向支配关系,为解释上之明确以杜绝争议,建议应将控制关系改为关系企业。就消息受领人而言,笔者建议,不论是第几手之消息受领人,只要会对证券市场之公平性造成影响,即有加以非难之必要,且为了避免有心人士将消息先透过他人之手再辗转告知给第三人,以规避内幕交易之责任,建议应修改明确的将间接受领人亦纳入规范范围内。3.完善犯罪对象要件的建议:笔者认为,随着时代进步,现在证券市场贩卖的商品种类繁多,并非只有股票交易,如果每出现一项新的商品就要通过立法程序完善打击面,将大大影响市场效率,建议应当授权主管机关得对新型的证券金融商品予以纳入规范之范畴。4.完善犯罪客观要件的建议:就重大性而言,笔者认为,消息是否对股票价格有重大影响,或对正当投资人之投资决定有重大影响,因具有高度之事实认定特性,故可参考美国上对于消息重大性之判断基准:原则上若一项未经公开之消息,假如一位理性投资人知悉后,会对其投资决定造成影响,则此一消息即具有重大性;就重大消息公开方式而言,除依据《管理办法》的规定外,笔者认为该重大消息经媒体报导,且经公司出面证实,则亦应认定已符合消息公开之规定。第三、完善我国台湾地区内幕交易民、刑事责任的建议。1.民事责任:于连带责任部分,笔者认为因连带赔偿责任除债务人明示外,以法律有明文规定为限,故若要使数人负连带赔偿责任,建议应先修法明示规定;于法院得视行为人情节是否重大,将损害赔偿额提高3倍,笔者认为损害赔偿之基本原则乃在填补损害,则投资人之损害既已由法律拟制为买进或卖出该证券之价格,与消息公开后10个营业日收盘平均之差额,而法院提高其赔偿金额至3倍,将违反民事有损害才有赔偿之原则,故建议以行政机关得处行为人行政罚金之方式,亦同样能达到惩罚行为人之效果。2.刑事责任:如何计算犯罪所得部分,笔者认为即使行为人于消息公开后未全数卖出股票,但保有之股票仍有一定之加值利益存在,故纵使未卖出之股票亦应列入犯罪所得之计算当中,而因证券市场上瞬息万变,影响股价的因素很多,故应采取拟制之交易价格,作为计算犯罪所得之基础。
【Abstract】 Taiwan securities market started very early, in1962founded the Taiwan StockExchange, in1968promulgated the " Securities and Exchange Law," has been morethan60years, with Taiwan ’s economic development, social change and progress ofthe times, in Taiwan " securities and Exchange Law " experienced a total of17alters.Taiwan “Securities Exchange Act” at a securities transaction should be clearlydefined in order to” develop the national economy and to protect the investment," forthe purpose for that purpose, stable stock market is particularly important. I believethat the destruction of the securities market stability in many crimes, the crime ofinsider trading is undoubtedly one of the minimum costs, the most harmful.Insider trading insider information refers people to master the use of insiderinformation for securities trading, the purpose is to obtain benefits or reduce losses.Fair securities market should have the following three characteristics:1, enablinginvestors to maximize access to market information;2, securities prices can quicklyand accurately reflect market information;3, through the market value of thesecurities is properly evaluated. But insider trading is the use of ordinary investors donot know the information to get the actual benefits on the stock market is a seriousviolation, not only violated the securities market fair, just and open three principles,seriously affecting the efficiency of the market, leading investors to the securitiesdistrust of markets, securities trading market is not conducive to normal operation.Countries around the world prohibit insider trading regulations prevalent, but notthe same as the theoretical basis of the Taiwan region has its unique theoretical system,the first chapter on theoretical aspects to be described.Taiwan, on the prohibition of insider trading doctrine there are five:1. The market theory. That: the overall observation from the market in order tofacilitate information flow, and promote rational allocation of resources, improve theefficiency of the securities market based investors should have equal rights of accessto information in order to maintain fair trade. For insider trading violations of this policy, serious damage to investor confidence, affecting the healthy development ofthe market and must be banned.2. The fiduciary relationship theory. That: the company, the “insiders “such asdirectors, supervisors, managers, etc., are liable for the company and its shareholdersfiduciary duty. In this context, if the use of the company’s insider information in thestock market for their own profit, equal to his own interests precedence over thecompany and shareholders, contrary to the fiduciary duty, should be prohibited.3. The misappropriation theory. That: when the perpetrator violated the trust of thesources obligation, to take the message privately for trading in the stock, constituteinsider trading.4. The special relationship theory. That: as long with a "special relationship" can getor touching internal message, the message is for corporate purposes instead of aprivate nature and use of information and knowledge of others to produce congenitalunfair trade fairs, shall be prohibiting insider trading behavior.5. The information advantage theory. That: Only when trading participants haveinformation advantage, then how are other traders diligence, are unable to overcomethe legitimate means, the trader will feel really unfair, namely insider tradinginformation that should be banned.I believe that the fiduciary relationship theory and misappropriation of absolutemarket has drawbacks. Mainly made of special relations theory, information theory,supplemented by the market on edge. That is, any person access to insider information,the source must be a special relationship with the premise of insider trading norms hasbeen justified. The so-called special relationship, by virtue of behavior anddistribution companies, public acquisition of companies, or other sources of speciallinks, resulting in recurrent News Contact pipes. When the perpetrator is through thisrelationship and get information superiority, this information must be prohibited, if theperpetrator use this information to conduct transactions, should be considered insidertrading.To make the securities market remained stable, fair and reasonable, Taiwan in1988," Securities Exchange Act " one new section157" prohibits insider trading regulations", the result of the Crime of Insider Trading flooded with many uncertainlegal concepts and economic criminal investigation of problems exist, increasing thedifficulty of court convictions, resulting in the suspect to escape legal sanction,seriously affecting the fairness of the securities market, causing public distrust causednational panic. In view of this, the21st century, Taiwan legislators referencesecurities authorities suggested that academic theories and judicial decisions,respectively, in2002,2006and2010carried out three changes to criminalprosecution and judicial organs of the legal proceedings to provide legal basis.Although Taiwan legislators perfect insider trading on the elements of the crime tomake many changes, but there are still many loopholes article from Chapter II toChapter V, respectively, Taiwan crime of insider trading on the subjective, subject,object, elements of such an objective discussion on related issues and reasons for theauthor’s views.The second chapter of the crime of insider trading subjective men’s read sub-section discusses the following two:First, what is known? I believe that knowledge is the message recipient knows whohas a special status messaging. That is the message recipient’s identity for messagingshould know, even if people knew messaging is probably the law of a specific person,is known. In other words, it knows not only includes direct intent, indirect intent canbe established.Second, the perpetrator knows the message is still holding penalties should be usedbefore being punished? I agree with the use of said view. The perpetrator was awareof the message and the transaction should be causal relationship between behavior canconstitute insider trading. If the investor becomes aware before the investment planhas been drawn up, invest their discretionary trading or entrust others to trade, notbecause it knows the message and for the trading of stocks, such as the requirementbecause he knows the news to prohibit the sale of stock, will enable the investor’sinvestment plan prepared in advance stalled, it is over when.Chapter III of the crime of insider trading body, divided into the following fivesections are discussed: First, the traditional insiders, that company directors, supervisors, managers, alsoincludes Taiwan,"Company Law" the first paragraph of Article27of the exercise bythe designated representative of the company and the jobs of more than per cent stakein the company ten shareholders.Second, the quasi-insider, which is based on informed professional relationshipbased on control messages between people and the people who received the news.What is “aware of the professional relationship based on message”? I deliberatetheories and doctrines made after judicial practice: the professional content has to beaware of the possibility of unforeseen elements of the message, but not theoccupation has a direct relationship with the inside information is limited, and peopledo not act with the shareholders of listed companies to have a relationship of trustlimit, as long as based on the " professional" to have access to confidentialinformation of listed companies, including government regulatory authorities in thecivil service. Simply put, as long as the perpetrator to obtain confidential informationis not disclosed on the professional relationship, is included in the scope of thisparagraph.Third, the former insiders, that people at the loss of identity within the companyafter a certain period, usually remain on the company’s financial, business familiarityor influence, so Taiwan " Securities and Exchange Law" states: directors, supervisors,managers,, majority shareholder and relations based on occupation or control of thepeople, in the six months after the loss of identity is still considered corporate insiders.If the aforementioned person whiles their spouse, minor children or the use ofcompany stock trading in the name of others who are also applicable to this sectionprohibits insider trading.Fourth, the message recipient, namely Taiwan," Securities and Exchange Law"Article157of Section1, paragraph5, from the traditional insider, quasi-insiders,former insiders who know the message, the message recipient, will be the section ofthe people as the scope of prohibition, would prohibit insider trading broader level,the maintenance of a sound and fair securities market more help. Among them,whether to include indirect recipient? I learned from the legislative provisions righteousness, insights and practical insights theory analysis suggested that themessage recipient ’s responsibility does not in breach of the obligations inside passinside information as requirements, as long as the message recipient subjective ableto recognize the message as a significant impact on price and unpublished, and usethis great news trading stocks, already damaged the fairness of the securities marketshould be regulated, therefore indirectly lead people also included.Five, spouses, minor children and the use of another person’s name holders. Amongthem, how to judge people for the internal use of the case of securities held on behalfof others? In simple terms, the internal man and the account to be used if both thesupply relationship between the control and profit and loss attribution affiliation, thenthe account will be considered for the use of the account held in the name of others.The author believes that the company’s directors, supervisors, managers, and holdsmore than10percent of the company shares to shareholders if the use of stocks heldin the name of others, but there is the case of insider trading, the company that bearsinsider trading insider responsibility. As for whether the use of human knowledge oftheir different responsibilities, such as the use of human and human behavior andconduct liaison with men’s read share for the common principal offender; although ifthey are informed by human, but only account for the behavior of people use withoutmen’s read Contact and behavior-sharing, to help offenders; such person’s account isbeing used instead of insider theft, not a crime.Chapter IV of the crime of insider trading objects is discussed. Theory of criminallaw in Taiwan, the “object of a crime “is equivalent to China mainland criminal object.Therefore, this chapter mainly from the angle of the object of crime is discussed forease of reading; it will be unified with the “object of crime “in statements.In this chapter, the meaning of " other equity securities that " the doctrine andpractice of the author deliberate made after opinion, as long as there attend theshareholders ’meeting, dividends and surplus property, and the other for theprotection of minority shareholders’ rights in the case of other equity-type securities.In other words, if the securities have no voting rights or equity based on any of therights proceeds, is not part of the insider dealing specification objects. Chapter V focuses on the thesis, this chapter will Crimes objective elements ofinsider trading in the major news, divided into the following three parts are discussed:First, the big news of the judgment. Materiality of insider information is convictedfor us to judge whether insider trading is the most important and most controversial ofthe constituent elements, through the analysis of this article can be found in Taiwanjudicial practice materiality judgments of the message, and the United States TSCIndus. V. Northway, Inc. cases taken " reasonable shareholder on all matters that maybe considered important " and Basic Inc. V. Levinson cases taken " in accordance withthe probability of events and event operations for the company’s overall degree ofinfluence two factors determine " the same standard, so this article will first analyzetwo cases and two cases of this judicial practice in Taiwan, the impact on the proposedinstructions. Taiwan doctrine says that in theory pass judgment on materiality shouldbe taken to be able to make vague standards for different court cases actually usedflexibly to avoid excessive or norms regulate the shortage occurred.But I do not agree doctrine Tong said, the other big news of the proposed standardshould be clarification. There are three reasons: one, clearly defined within thecompany not only allows people to understand what the message is public beforetrading, investors will be more trusted public information is correct, enhance investorconfidence in the securities market.2, the criminal offense of insider trading higherby “major news judgment should have a certain degree of flexibility” as the reason isnot sufficient, what kind of things should be open to trade, should be clearly aware ofthe company and investors.3, the competent authority may authorize the legislature orthe stock market trends with the trend of the times and amended at any time in a listformat. Perhaps the lack of standardized methods listed mining, but rather due to lackof norms is not punishable, neither shall regulate vague and people are brought to thecrime of insider trading.Second, the major type of message. Taiwan insider dealing significant impact onstock prices said the news is related to corporate finance, business and market supplyand demand specific securities, tender offer, the specific content of a particular stockprice have a significant impact on legitimate investor or investment decisions have important implications for the message. The major type of message, according toTaiwan "significant message management approach" requirement can be divided intotwo categories, the first category is related to corporate finance, business news, andthe second category is related to the securities market supply and demand information,and the application of different open manner. Whether it is " involved in corporatefinance, business news " or " supply and demand in a particular stock market news"must achieve " the company’s stock prices have a significant impact " or " legitimateinvestors for investment decisions have a major impact " as the standard, insidertrading norms is prohibited.Third, the establishment of major news and public point of identification.Establishment of major news point to develop the significance of defining an interiorperson shall materially messages clearly; the message is not publicly disclosed beforeor after a certain period of time, the sale of shares or other securities with equitycharacteristics. In Taiwan, China “Securities Exchange Act” of that, the point is theestablishment of a “multi-point, the first time “approach to computing. I believe thatany material information has formation process, and the message of theestablishment, and sometimes wait for the views of the two completely HUD or anycontract form, if the stick to rigid criteria established formal standards identified thetiming of the message that the program has not been completed, the message insteadof inside information has not been determined, but fear not deviate too rigid facts,and even lead some people deliberately delay the message point or likely to give upinfluential insider manipulation point space for insider trading operation leaving asidemore space insider trading is more difficult to judge.On this issue, the author analyzes the theory and doctrine of judicial practice of thevarious viewpoints put forward, major news points should be established promptlyconsider the following three criteria:1, materiality: Be the illegal insider tradingnews, be on the investor ’s investment decision significant impact;2, the specificnature: If company has other aspects for future investment objectives or stepped up tomake major investments in new areas and therefore will require a lot of capital, butinvestment, replenishment time and size of the schedule has not yet decided such messages do not have the specific nature;3, certainty: As news of illegal insidertrading, not just a mere imagination or speculation, if belonging to the companyforecast earnings changes, although the forecast for the future development, muststill have occurred based on the fact that the calculated number before they can thinkwith certainty.The author proposed a significant impact on the stock price of the message shouldbe clear, legislators can refer cases of advanced national legislation and courtdecisions, the relevant message " materiality "," concrete " and " certainty " that thejudge based on the gradual view, will major news abstractions be " specific " and "typed " seek judicial or administrative interpretation can be more clear.Chapter VI of the crime of insider trading liability, sub-section discusses thefollowing two:First, the civil liability. There are three issues worth discussing:1, the obligation of reparation. If there are multiple people who compensatoryobligations, whether among them bear joint and several liability? The author believesthat Taiwan " Securities Exchange Act " is only the fourth to the first157people withthe message provides messaging recipient jointly and severally liable, together forinsider trading for the number of people in Taiwan," Securities Exchange Act " hadno jointly and severally liable to the provisions comply with Taiwan Area " CivilCode " on page272of the regulations, the establishment of joint debt, in addition tothe debtor expressly outside, as expressly provided by law is limited, and the Taiwanregion," securities Exchange Act " on page179about the behavior of the person incharge on behalf of the company from criminal liability provisions, whether theperson should be held responsible for civil liability, it would take another judge.Therefore, in order to clear in order to avoid controversy, the author proposes,should be directed at Taiwan," Securities and Exchange Law" Article157of the thirdparagraph after the addition of people together for the insider trader, bear joint andseveral liability, in order to protect the interests of investors.2, the claimant. Engage in insider dealing in good faith with the opposite tradingpersons and companies had to act in violation of the prohibition against insider trading obligation to compensate people to seek compensation, including controversial iswhether to seek compensation for securities brokers? I believe that, according to theprinciples of civil law damages have to seek compensation for damages, securitiesbrokers, although the parties to the contract of sale, but because the securities brokercommissioned only by investors in securities trading market for investors to tradestocks, to invest who charge a fee, gain or loss does not actually bear stock tradinggains and losses, securities brokers and therefore will not be harmed as insidertrading, securities brokers neither damage occurs, of course, cannot claimcompensation from the perpetrator.3, the compensation is calculated. According to Taiwan," Securities and ExchangeLaw" Article179provides that illegal insider trading, if the circumstances areserious, the court may reverse a merchant engaged in bona fide request, will beincreased to three times the limit of liability. The author believes that the court maybe increased to three times the amount of compensation, this provision have apunitive character, if adopted leniency finds that as long as the perpetrator is notsimply open the message, is guilty of serious nature, are too harsh for the perpetrator,and the in the majority of insider trading cases, the behavior is simply not themessage everyone publicly, will lead to increase of3times compensation willbecome the norm, rather than legislative grounds only have to use a special episode.To avoid this from happening, the author proposes a so-called narrow interpretationshould be taken serious nature, should only be one intentionally delaying insideinformation disclosure only when the circumstances are significant.Second, The criminal liability. There are three issues worth discussing:1, calculate the proceeds of crime. Theoretical and practical circles in Taiwan onthis issue in the following three different perspectives:(1) Pro forma said. Pro formafor the transactions in that is calculated, this is the reference in Taiwan," Securitiesand Exchange Law" Article157of the second civil liability provisions, market-basedtransactions reasonable price, calculated as a pro forma transactions in the basis, whilethe so-called market trading price reasonable basis, is the big news was made publicon the10th of the average price.(2) Causation said. Advocates causality interrupt -based, as determined in accordance with causality, emphasizing the resultsimputation, the perpetrator’s behavior and results to a causal relationship, this resultcan be attributable to the behavior of people, so as to causation interrupt pointcalculation crime the resulting benchmark causality price movements after theinterruption, has nothing to do with the behavior of people, cannot ask the perpetratorresponsible.(3) distinguish said. If you sell the stock, using the effective fullpurchase amount minus the amount sold, the proceeds of crime is a profit; if stock isnot fully sold, places to sell the stock average net purchase price is calculated basedon the average price.I believe that the impact of price changes on the stock market due to many factors,if a criminal case in accordance with generally recognized way to determine causationPrice Change whether the major news disclosed a causal relationship, it will causedifficult to judge, so the pro forma transactions shall be calculated by indeednecessary, but the court judgment in the actual case inference should be consideredreasonable, the defendant should be allowed to put forward evidence to the contrary,proof of the message after the publication of a major impact securities violations, orthere are other factors that affect stock price movements, enough to break the causalrelationship. The amount of the proceeds of crime involving the severity ofpunishments, in order to avoid calculations in different ways, leading to differentsentencing result, based on fairness and the principle of legal certainty, the authorproposes should amend existing laws, transactions shall be clearly defined in order topro forma amounts as deemed proceeds of crime way.2, complicity between the proceeds of crime should be aggregated. The authorsuggested that the proceeds of crime should be limited to the actual perpetrator of theproperty taken from the crime, such as other actors obtained through legitimatemeans should not the proceeds of crime, from which the others cannot be combinedincome as their income, otherwise there lost " income" of significance. And the crimeof insider trading by the investor in the form of major news recipient trading behavior,basically the perpetrator is self-financing, with no subjective intent to share theproceeds of crime. If human behavior for their respective contributions, self-dealing, self-financing situation, should not be combined proceeds of crime. On the contrary,such as human behavior jointly decided from the beginning that the transaction price,trading point and then jointly allocate the proceeds of crime, have to share with othersthe subjective intention of proceeds of crime, the perpetrator were traded allocation isto avoid the securities owned by the regulatory authority, the should only be combinedproceeds of crime.3, the administrative responsibility of the feasibility of alternative criminal. Theauthor suggested that although the administrative penalty process quickly, you canquickly reach the effect of sanctions against the perpetrator, unlike criminal penaltiesto go through a lengthy court process, but to completely replace the criminaladministrative responsibility seems to be wrong. Because insider trading mostlypremeditated crime, discover and collect relevant evidence of the difficulties, and theTaiwan judicial administrative organs of investigation does not seem permission, sothe investigation more difficult than the judiciary, and if the perpetrator insidertrading the fact cannot be determined, according to Taiwan " administrativeProcedure law" Article136provides that the administrative authority may actstipulated by the reconciliation with the contract to replace the administrativesanctions, so the perpetrator can " buy crimes" to absolve themselves of liability.Thus, simply to administrative penalties to curb insider trading means are insufficientto achieve the purpose, but it can be administrative penalties as an additional means ofcriminal punishment. Therefore, I propose, should be in the current criminal and civilliability, the introduction of administrative responsibility, for example, the originalcivil judge can confer significant or not depending on the circumstances, will beincreased to three times the damages provisions changed to administrative finesbecause the terms of civil liability provisions of whom, significantly higher than theinvestor compensation extent of the damage, so to make a request for compensationbut there are investors who are suspected of unjust enrichment, and administrativefines have a punitive character, can achieve curb insider business crime efficacy, butalso to avoid the claimant unjust enrichment of the situation.The last chapter is the conclusion. The chapter concludes the paper, how to improve the proposed basic theory insidertrading in Taiwan, Components and China criminally recommendations.
【Key words】 insider trading; insider information; publicly identified; criminal justice; open time; economic crimes;