從信賴義務論公司外部人之內線交易責任-以公務員及立法委員為中心

A Study on the Liability of Corporate Outsider Trading from the Perspective of Fiduciary Duty: Focusing on Public Servants and Legislators.

029774507(Mei-ting Chen)

指導教授 ： 蔡昌憲

國立清華大學/科技管理學院/科技法律研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6843/NTHU.2012.00068

摘要

我國內線交易規範主要是針對公司內部人而設之禁令，至於公司外部人則處於欠缺明確規範的模糊地帶，公務員與立法委員非公司內部人，但均屬容易獲悉重大未公開消息之身分，卻不在法條明文之列，此二者是否須遵守內線交易之禁令，確有釐清之必要。惟內線交易規範理論向來有市場論與信賴義務理論之爭，採取何種理論對於責任主體之界定有重大影響，然而，觀諸我國現況，見解仍未一致。本文主張應採取信賴義務理論作為內線交易規範理論之依據，主要理由為內線交易涉及刑事責任，不宜輕率論之，市場論打擊面過廣，以信賴義務理論為據則能限縮責任主體，較為妥適。此外，信賴義務理論之核心要件為「行為人須違反信賴義務」，「信賴義務」(Fiduciary Duty)本為一上位概念，其與內線交易規範所禁止之行為具有密切關聯，內線交易規範所禁止之行為乃為違反信賴義務下之「忠實義務」(Duty of Loyalty)，據此，公司內部人因具有公司法上之信賴義務(Fiduciary Duty)，若從事內線交易則為信賴義務之違反，成立內線交易責任；即使公司外部人對發行股票公司不具有信賴義務，亦於信賴義務理論的射程範圍內，蓋公司外部人對於消息來源具有信賴義務，違反則成立內線交易責任，是故，以信賴義務理論適用我國內線交易規範即為已足。公務員與立法委員屬於公司外部人，其內線交易責任亦得以信賴義務理論推論之。本文之研究目的係為解決公司外部人的內線交易責任問題，如何使具有特殊身分的公司外部人於法有據地受到禁止從事內線交易之規範限制，並以公務員與立法委員、以及具公務員身分之國家金融安定基金管理委員會人員為討論中心。

關鍵字

內線交易 ； 信賴義務 ； 公司外部人交易

並列摘要

The regulation of insider trading in our country mainly focus on corporate insiders; however, corporate outsiders, there is no specific rules to apply. Although public servants and legislators are not corporate insiders, their positions are so sensitive that make them acquire material nonpublic information quite easily. As a result, it is truly necessary to figure out whether both of them are the subjects under the regulation of insider trading or not. However, there have been a regulation theory battle between “The Equal Access Theory” and “Classical Theory” (Misappropriation Theory included) in our country, and which theory as the basic ground of the regulation dose really matters in defining the subjects under the regulation. This paper asserts that Classical Theory should be applied as the fundamental ground of the insider trading regulation. The main reason is that the consequence of insider trading is involved with the crime penalty so that it should be much more prudent while interpreting this regulation, therefore, it is more appropriate to apply Classical Theory because of its narrow subject scope. In addition, fiduciary duty is a crucial and fundamental concept in jurisprudence, a key element in Classical Theory also. The reason that insiders violate the insider trading regulation is breach of the duty of loyalty, which is under the fiduciary duty. Even though corporate outsiders have no fiduciary duty to securities issued company, they are also under the scope of Classical Theory because of their fiduciary duty owed the information source. As a result, Classical Theory is the appropriate theory for insider trading regulation instead of the Equal Access Theory, and the problems raised by public servants and legislators also can be solved by the application of this theory, which is the main goal of this paper.

並列關鍵字

insider trading ； fiduciary duty ； outsider trading

參考文獻

 林育廷(2009)。〈論金融專業人員之信賴義務〉，《東吳法律學報》，20卷4期，頁213-249。

 林國彬(2007)。〈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》，100期，頁135-214。

 邵慶平(2008)，〈董事受託義務內涵與類型的再思考—從監督義務與守法義務的比較研究再出發〉，《台北大學法學論叢》，66期，頁1-43。

 張心悌(2008)。〈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》，37卷3期，頁97-128。

 張心悌(2009)。〈內線交易消息傳遞之民事責任〉，《台北大學法學論叢》，74期，頁109-145。