證券詐欺於美國法之新發展及對我國法之啟示 ---以交易因果關係為中心

The New Development of Securities Fraud in the U.S. and Its Lessons for Taiwan — Focus on Transaction Causation

張瀚升(Han-Sheng Chang)

指導教授 ： 張心悌

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系一般生組/碩士(2015年)

摘要

我國證券交易法之立法目的為發展國民經濟，以及保障投資，並於證券交易法第20條對於證券詐欺有概括性的規範，而證券詐欺不論國內外學說與實務見解都存有相當大的爭議，其中包含交易因果關係之認定，因證券市場交易行為有別於傳統的面對面交易，故要如何證明投資人確實因信賴公司所提供之公開不實資訊而購買該有價證券並受有損害即為一個難解的問題。
對此，美國學說發展出「詐欺市場理論」，美國聯邦最高法院在Basic案中明文採納此理論，認為投資人只要證明：公司為公開不實陳述、該不實陳述具有重大性、該有價證券是在一個有效率的市場上進行交易且投資人在不實資訊公布後正確資訊揭露前有為交易行為，即可認為公司是對整體市場進行詐欺而推定交易因果關係成立。但此判決並未使爭議完全平息，學說實務轉而對於詐欺市場理論有所爭執，本文將從美國聯邦最高法院近年來關於詐欺市場理論所做成的三個判決開始介紹相關爭議，其中較重要是2014年6月做成的Halliburton Ⅱ判決，該判決多數意見否定了長久以來質疑詐欺市場理論的論述，並認為詐欺市場理論的重點不在於該市場是否為效率市場，而應以該不實資訊對股價產生影響即可認定成立詐欺市場理論。該判決內容明確將「詐欺市場理論」與「效率市場假說」兩個理論加以區別，雖然美國學說見解已有類似論述，但聯邦最高法院多數意見明確採取此一見解將對美國法院見解產生重大影響且因我國證券交易法主要是參考美國法所制訂，故本文認為美國的相關實務學說見解應可供我國參考。
在介紹完美國法新近判決後，本文將回頭檢視我國實務見解在證券詐欺案件中如何判斷因果關係及如何引進美國法的詐欺市場理論，最後針對被告提出「臺灣證券市場並不具有效率而無法適用詐欺市場理論」之抗辯，法院的相關見解。在整理我國實務判決後，可發現我國實務在認定因果關係上見解相當混亂，本文認為應引進詐欺市場理論，但效果僅在推定交易因果關係成立而不及於損失因果關係；效率市場抗辯則是可參考上述美國法院實務判決，而認為此一爭執並無實義，重點應放在不實資訊是否對股價產生影響。

關鍵字

交易因果關係 ； 效率市場假說 ； 詐欺市場理論 ； 證券詐欺

並列摘要

Securities and Exchange Act in our country is enacted for the purpose of promoting the national economic development and the protection of investors. In addition, a general regulation of securities fraud was enacted in article 20. However, regardless of in our country or in other countries, securities fraud has huge controversies in theories and practicing law including the affirmation of transaction causation. Because transactions in securities exchange market is quite different from the traditional face-to-face transactions, how to prove that the investors suffered damages due to purchasing the securities by trusting in misrepresentation provided by the company is a quite complicated issue.
To deal with it, fraud on the market theory was developed in the US. Federal Supreme Court in Basic adopted this theory and thought that the investor only has to prove the following things:(1) the alleged misrepresentations were publicly known, (2) they were material, (3) the stock traded in an efficient market, and (4) the plaintiff traded the stock between when the misrepresentations were made and when the truth was revealed. By proving the above things, we can presume that the establishment of transaction causation is due to the company’s fraud on the market.
Afterwards, many scholars disputed the fraud on the market theory. This research will firstly introduce some related issues in three judgments by Federal Supreme Court about fraud on the market theory. Federal Supreme Court in HalliburtonⅡ in June, 2014 is the most important case. Majority opinion in this judgement denied fraud on the market theory and considered that the point of this theory is not whether the market is efficient, but whether the misrepresentation influenced the stock price.
This case clearly distinguishes fraud on the market theory between efficient-market hypothesis. Majority opinion of Federal Supreme Court clearly adopted this concept which would have a huge influence on the US courts. Besides, because Securities and Exchange Act in our country was enacted mainly based on the US law, this research considers that the related cases and theories could be references for our law.
After introducing the latest cases in US, this article will inspect how we judge causation and how we introduce fraud on the market theory from US law of securities fraud in our courts. Lastly, discussing the opinions of courts about the defense that “securities market in Taiwan is not efficient, so we can’t apply fraud on the market theory .” This research considers that we should introduce fraud on the market theory to our country. However, the effect limits in the presumption of establishment of transaction causation rather than causation of damage. Besides, the defense of efficient market can consult the cases of the US courts that we should focus on whether the misrepresentation influenced the stock price.

並列關鍵字

Transaction Causation ； Efficient-market Hypothesis ； Fraud On The Market Theory ； Securities Fraud

參考文獻

余雪明，證券交易法，中華民國證券暨期貨市場發展基金會出版，2003年。

王志誠，發行市場證券詐欺規範之解釋及適用，律師雜誌，第297 期，2004年6月。

莊永丞，由美國Dura v. Broudo 案反思證券投資人之損害因果關係，東吳法律學報，第22 卷第4 期，2011 年4 月。

黃朝琮，詐欺市場理論中之效率市場及價格衝擊，法令月刊，第65卷第11期，2014年11月。

張心悌，證券詐欺之因果關係與損害賠償─板橋地方法院九十六年度金字第二號民事判決，台灣本土法學雜誌，第101 期，2007 年12 月。