透過您的圖書館登入
IP:34.203.242.200
  • 學位論文

內線交易之範圍-以直接及間接消息受領人為核心

The Scope of Insider Trading-From the Perspective of Direct and Indirect Tippees

指導教授 : 張心悌
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


證券市場關係一國經濟發展,而內線交易影響證券市場甚鉅,故各國均設有規範。然對於內線交易規範之主體範圍,由其在消息傳遞責任中,「間接消息受領人」(第二手以下之消息受領人)是否需受規範向有爭論,本文除分析此議題外,並更進一步探討「直接消息受領人」(第一手消息受領人)規範之合理性。 本文以跨國比較法、歷史研究法、法律經濟學為研究方法,並對美國、歐盟以及我國證券交易法及其修正草案等相關規範及文獻進行分析。美國法將內線交易制定於其證券交易法 Section10(b)、證券交易規則 Rule 10b-5,Rule 10b5-1。美國法採以「詐欺」究責之立法架構。在此架構下,建立起一系列之規範標準,如資訊平等理論,忠實義務理論及略作修正之私取理論,資訊財產理論。目前係以忠實義務理論及私取理論為通說。 歐盟對於內線交易則以禁止內線交易指令、禁止市場濫用指令等規範之。歐盟法早期雖受到美國法詐欺論之影響,然其係以「市場之健全」為保護要旨,並認為,凡有礙健全市場之建構者,均應加以禁止,是以不以詐欺之存否為要件,從而在法規設計上,顯較美國法為嚴格。 對於內線交易之規範基礎,本文以為應採忠實義務理論。蓋惟有行為人違反其忠實義務,方有損害市場誠信之可能,逕以傳遞消息為處罰要件而不論是否有交易發生實過於嚴苛。此外,健全市場理論賦予內部人立即公開之義務亦難以實行,復由於該理論本身多處亦帶有忠實義務理論之色彩,故應以忠實義務理論為佳。職是之故,本文對於消息傳遞責任之探討,係以忠實義務理論為主。 依美國法通說,在忠實義務理論下之消息傳遞責任中,消息受領人需負擔內線交易責任乃因其受領內部人之忠實義務。然消息受領人實並未與公司成立忠實關係,且由其歸責要件與內部人不同、注意義務義與內部人不同之情形觀之,消息受領人之地位與內部人不同,不應負擔相同義務;此外,內線消息之傳遞亦有助於促進市場效率。就我國司法實務而言,法院慣常以「共同正犯」論處間接消息受領人之罪,亦屬不當。綜上,內線交易係根源於內部人違反其忠實義務而傳遞內線消息,現行法懲處消息受領人不但錯置因果,亦對不負忠實義務之消息受領人有欠公允,故本文建議,應免除不論直接或間接消息受領人之內線交易責任,並加重內部人責任,以維繫當事人間之公平、權益,促進證券市場之活絡。

並列摘要


As the financial market is vital to the economic growth, the insider trading has gotten a lot of attention by the countries all around the world. This thesis discusses the rationality of the regulation about the scope and the affirmative defenses of the insider trading, for they play the basic role for the insider trading rules. There are two main theories about insider trading regulation, one is “fiduciary relationship theory”, which is accepted by the American law; another is “market integrity theory”, which is accepted by the EU. In the thesis’ opinion, the fiduciary theory is better for the reasons below: Under the market integrity theory, the dealer will bear the liability even though he or she doesn’t make any transaction; in addition, any person, regardless whether he or she has the relationship with the company or shareholders or not, will face the liability, even though the confidence in the market won’t be affected. Besides, it’s impossible for the tippees to fulfill some obligations required by the theory. After all, the market integrity theory is too rigid to be followed, so the possibility of it’s goal to be practiced is tiny. Therefore, the issues discussed in the thesis are mainly based on the fiduciary relationship theory. Tippers and tippees should bear the liability when they deliver the nonpublic information or proceed transaction with the knowledge of the information under the fiduciary relationship theory. However, we found that the tippees aren’t the inside person in the company, there isn’t any relationship between each other, fiduciary duty couldn’t be transferred to them; besides, the regulation for tippees and tippers are different, so it’s thus clear that they are in different status, and what’s more tippers are the direct cause of insider trading. In brief, making tippees in the insider trading regulation not only violates the fiduciary relationship, but also misunderstands the reason and cause of it. In conclusion, tippees should be excluded from the insider trading regulation, for they shouldn’t bear the fiduciary duty. Insider trading will not destroy the confidence in the market until it’s not fair, and the fairness won’t be destroyed until a person who bear the fiduciary duty proceeds the transaction. Once the tippees are free from the liability, they even can promote the efficiency of the financial market according to the economic analysis. After all, only making tippees free from the liability and increasing the liability of the tippers can maintain the rights of the dealers, and promote the efficiency of the financial markets.

參考文獻


27.陳照世,從歐盟與英國市場濫用防制計畫反思我國對內線交易與操縱市場之制度設計,國立台灣大學法律學院法律學系碩士論文,2008年6月。
13.林國彬,董事忠誠義務與司法審查標準之研究-以美國德拉瓦州公司法為主要範圍,政大法學評論,第100期,2007年12月。
11.鄭俊仁,信託之法務於實務,財政部金融局,初版,1993年6月。
19.張心悌,從法律經濟學與資訊財產權探討內線交易理論:兼論內線交易內部人之範圍,台大法學論叢,第37卷第3期,2008年9月。
7.陳子平,刑法總論(下),初版,2006年。

延伸閱讀