內線交易案件犯罪所得之計算- 兼論專家證人制度

近年來，由於社會變遷及科技發展，重大金融犯罪案件時有所聞。立法者為保障投資、健全證券市場，於證券交易法第157條之1明文禁止內線交易行為，同時於第171條第2項規定所得利益達一定金額加重其刑，與第6項沒收犯罪所得。據此，犯罪所得數額之認定，將影響行為人之刑度及沒收之範圍，對於被告之人身自由、財產權等權利影響甚鉅，故就內線交易犯罪所得之認定不可不慎。由於法條及修法理由均未明示犯罪所得計算方法，造成實務見解之分歧，且有不斷發回更審、延宕訴訟之情形。本文探究禁止內線交易之理論基礎與立法目的，並認為內線交易罪的保護法益為對「資本市場之健全功能」、「市場參與者對資本市場的信賴」之保護。行為人透過對於內線消息的優勢認知地位，破壞投資大眾對市場之信賴，犯罪所得應為「特殊的獲利或避損機會」，而非買入的股票或取得之價金本身。就犯罪所得之具體計算方式，本文以法院判決實證研究，分析實務內線交易犯罪所得計算標準，並參酌美國法例，以期提出在沒收新制下可資遵循之計算準則，於實體正義與程序正義間尋求平衡，在精確價格影響與計算簡易明確間建立折衷之計算原則。犯罪所得之認定倚重金融專業，犯罪誘因之遏止仰賴徹底沒收，本文將介紹美國專家證人與刑事沒收制度，期待借鏡外國法制提供修法方向，朝落實交互詰問權並加速審理程序方向邁進的同時，開啟專業知識進入我國法院的大門，因應金融新世代。

關鍵字

內線交易；犯罪所得；專家證人；沒收；鑑定；對質詰問；總額原則；淨額原則

並列摘要

How to calculate the criminal proceeds or the gain of the insider trading offense is hardly controversial among courts in Taiwan. The difference in the views of the gain computation causes most of the cases involved insider trading need to be tried for more time than other criminal cases. It severely violates defendants’ rights, and at the same time, damages the judicial economy. Coincidently, a similar issue is among U.S. circuit courts. This paper tries to understand the statue from the legislative history and the debate of cases in both Taiwan and the U.S. to find out an appropriate approach to calculate the gain in the insider trading cases. Due to the indefinite wording of Art. 171 of the Securities and Exchange Act and lack of securities professional of courts, courts in Taiwan refer to TWSE’s stock surveillance reports to judge the elements of series transactions. However, surveillance reports have some controversial problems in practice. The defendant can not cross-examine surveillance reports unless the trial court approves. The witness testimony provided by the defendant is also inadmissible because the defendant is not authorized by the law to appoint a forensic expert. But cross-examining is always a better way to test the reliability of surveillance reports. This paper argues that surveillance reports provided by TWSE and the government, in general, lack the reliability and introduces the Federal Rules of Evidence in the U.S. to provide legislative suggestions about the expert witness. The profit is the main incentive to commit economic crimes. It has become a consensus in the international community of law enforcement to confiscate the instrumentalities of unlawful activities and forfeit the assets generated by crime. It is an essential weapon to beat on the perpetrators of crime with administrative, criminal and civil forfeiture in the U.S.. the current legal system in Taiwan leaves a huge gap in fighting and cubing economic crimes. To bridge this gap in Taiwan’s legal system, this paper introduces the U.S. forfeiture regulations to provides some recommendations on forfeiture of criminal proceeds.