論內線交易行為人之主觀惡意

A Study on the Scienter of Insider Trading

紀文富(WEN-FU CHI)

指導教授 ： 莊永丞

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu200900056

摘要

本論文旨在探討內線交易罪之構成要件中，行為人之主觀惡意（Scienter）是否為犯罪該當的必要元素。目前我國實務見解以為，行為人只要「持有」重大非公開消息並為證券交易就可該當證券交易法第一百五十七條之一的內線交易罪，而不須考量其主觀上是否有「利用」系爭消息之惡意。然此種見解是否合理？內線交易罪在現行規定下具有刑責，且歷年修法的結果，刑責不斷向上加重，可否單純以其保護「市場公平及健全」此超個人法益，而忽視對個案行為人影響重大之主觀惡意的存在？不無疑問。本論文目的即在於深入研究此爭點。

　　首先，本論文介紹內線交易規範的起源，並在應否管制內線交易的正反論辯中，贊成應對內線交易加以管制。而為了強化管制正當性，本文以為內線交易罪應以行為人具備主觀惡意為犯罪之必要構成要件。

　　再者，由於美國為世界上第一個規範內線交易之國家，且我國之內線交易規範乃繼受自美國，故本論文藉由美國當代內線交易禁止理論發展之研究，探討內線交易行為之本質，並得出無論採取何種內線交易禁止理論，內線交易之本質均屬「詐欺」行為之結論。因此本文見解以為，行為人必須有意識的「利用」重大非公開消息，才有可能從中獲得利益並構成詐欺，若認為單純「持有」重大非公開消息而無利用的主觀心態就構成內線交易，等同於行為人「無意識的詐欺」，如此要課予行為人內線交易責任，不僅過於牽強，亦破壞內線交易規範之初衷，逾越其規範界限。

　　最後，本論文由比較法上，美國關於內線交易行為人是否須具備惡意之論辯（The “Possession vs. Use” Debate）的相關探討，對此爭點進行深入研析，而認為行為人「持有」並「利用」重大非公開消息為證券交易，才會構成內線交易規範的違反。對照我國實務判決理由，本論文以前述美國法上之討論為基礎對實務提出回應，分析其不合理之處，並建議我國內線交易罪之成立，應以行為人之主觀惡意為犯罪之必要構成要件，始為合理。

關鍵字

忠實義務 ； 內線交易 ； 持有 ； 詐欺 ； 惡意 ； 利用 ； 獲悉 ； 內部人 ； 私取 ； 重大非公開消息

並列摘要

The purpose of this thesis is to explore insider trading’s “Scienter” requirement. At present, the practical opinion in Taiwan holds that when people in possession of material nonpublic information, they must disclose or abstain from trading securities without considering if they have the intent to get personal advantage from the information. Nevertheless, the practical opinion is questionable. Insider trading offence has criminal liability under present provision, and the liability is cumulatively after several times of amendment. Under this legal framework, it seems insufficient to use “protecting the integrity of securities market” as a reason but ignore the important “Scienter” element. The purpose of this thesis is to research this issue.

Chapter II introduces the historical backdrop of insider trading and the debate of regulation versus deregulation, concludes that insider trading should be regulated. In behalf of the legitimacy of regulation, this thesis holds that insider trading liability requires a finding of “Scienter”.

Chapter III explores the nature of insider trading. Since insider trading regulation in Taiwan learned from United States, this thesis researches relevant precedent in U.S. to clarify the issue. In the end of Chapter III, this thesis concludes that no matter what theory be adopted, the nature of insider trading must be “Fraud”, and the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that insider trading liability requires a finding of “Scienter”. Hence, this thesis holds that we must proof the insider trading criminal’s actual use of material nonpublic information to conform with the insider trading’s “Fraud” nature. Courts must not convict an individual for insider trading based solely on proof of mere possession of material nonpublic information, or the rationality of insider trading liability is questionable, and it will harm the original intention of insider trading regulation and will exceed the limit of regulation.

Chapter IV explores the “Possession versus Use” debate in U.S., and agrees with the “Use” standard. Chapter V uses the former research of U.S. in Chapter IV to point out the irrationalism of practical opinion in Taiwan, and suggests that “Scienter”is also a requirement constituting insider trading in our country. Chapter VI reviews all the discussion in this thesis, concludes that “Use” standard is a appropriate standard.

並列關鍵字

Misappropriation ； Possession ； Fiduciary Duty ； Insider Trading ； Insider ； Awareness ； Fraud ； Scienter ； Use ； Material Nonpublic Information

參考文獻

10. 賴英照，公務員是不是內部人？，高大法學論叢，第3卷第1期 （2007年12月）。

12. 戴銘昇，論美國證券詐欺之主觀意圖要件，東吳法律學報，第19卷第2期 （2007年10月）。

最高法院91年台上字第3037號刑事判決。

最高法院94年台上字第1433號刑事判決。

最高法院96年台上字第2587號刑事判決。