論臺灣私募股權基金之證券監管法制－以公司型基金為中心

The Securities Regulation of Taiwan’s Private Equity Funds — Focusing on Investment Company Funds

張學昌(Hsueh-Chang Chnag)

指導教授 ： 揚岳平

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2019年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201903513

摘要

本文以臺灣私募股權基金為研究對象，並以我國有限合夥名錄及公司之登記資料為基礎，發現我國之私募股權基金主要以公司作為投資架構。本文認為，這種投資架構，使得同樣為基金投資活動的私募股權基金可不被視為證券投資信託及顧問法之基金－證券投資信託－管制；但另一方面，私募股權基金在解釋上仍可能構成全權委託投資及證券投資顧問業務，而受到嚴格的管制。此等結果顯示私募股權基金在臺灣面臨的高度法律風險，更突顯我國有「公司型基金」之管制漏洞。
　　本文以美國法作為比較研究之對象， 並提出三種建議改善現存的法律問題。第一，增訂「投資公司法」，與證券投資信託及顧問法並列，藉此補足公司型基金規範不足之處。第二，修正證券投資信託及顧問法，以「行為」而非法律架構作為證投法的適用對象，重整現行法規中各業務之定義，藉此包納公司型與信託型兩種不同之基金模式，使兩種基金皆能受到法律規範，並配合適度的豁免規範與擴張反詐欺義務之適用範圍，使較不具保護必要性之私募基金得受到較低密度之規範，享有較自由的運作空間，但仍不得採取隱瞞或詐欺之行為，損害投資人之利益。另考量現實中立法上的困難性，因此本文亦提出第三種建議，僅修正證投法第8條反詐欺義務，使其得以擴張適用於私募股權基金，在整體法規不變動的情況下，使私募股權基金市場中的投資人仍能適用證投法的反詐欺規定，尋求最低限度的管制與保護。

關鍵字

私募股權基金 ； 證券投資信託及顧問法 ； 公司型基金

並列摘要

This article studies the activities of private equity funds (PE funds) in Taiwan, and discovers that PE funds are constructed in corporation structure based on the company and limited partnership information list. The author argues that such structure spare PE funds in Taiwan from being regulated as funds──investment trust──under Securities Investment Trust and Consulting Act (SITCA). Yet, on the other hand, PE funds may strictly regulated as securities investment consulting or full fiduciary discretionary investment. These results not only imply that PE funds are under high legal risks in Taiwan, but also highlight the lack of regulation of “Investment Companies”.
The author also studies laws of U.S. and suggests three possible ways to resolve the existing issues. First, the legislation of investment company act to regulate funds organized as corporation apart from SITCA. Second, the redirection of regulation orientation of SITCA and adoption of exemption and anti-fraud provision. As the regulation mechanism switch from contractual relationship to the substantial economic activity, both investment company and securities investment trust can be regulated under SITCA. Besides, the adoption of exemption and anti-fraud provision for private funds can reach the balance between investor protection and the development of funds. Last, considering the foreseeable difficulties of legislation, expand the application of section 8 of SITCA (anti-fraud provision) to include PE funds may be a feasible alternative to achieve an acceptable investor protection in the market.

並列關鍵字

private equity fund ； investment company ； securities investment trust and consulting act ； investment company act ； investment adviser act

參考文獻

中文參考文獻

王文宇（2016），〈共同基金與投信投顧法〉，王文宇（編），《金融法》，第九版，頁240，臺北：元照。

王文宇（2004），〈我國證券私募法制之研究〉，氏著，《新金融法》，頁475-509，臺北：元照。

陳春山（1997），《證券投資信託專論》，頁404-413，台北：五南。

陳民強、詹致瑋（2017），〈私募股權基金的架構及運作〉，收於：黃日燦（編），《私募股權基金剖析：從國際到臺灣本土》，頁36-46，台北：臺灣併購與私募股權協會。