內線交易禁止是保障投資最重要之一環,各國為保護其證券市場,將內線交易行為透過刑法加以制裁,我國亦不例外。然而內線交易罪是嚴重破壞投資市場之新興犯罪型態,相較於傳統刑法而言,因為此一新興型態之經濟犯罪,理論發展才剛萌芽,而在規範要件往往因為不夠明確,而導致適用法律有所爭議。 尤其在內線交易之構成,是否以「行為人有『利用』未公開消息為交易行為」為必要;抑或是僅需「行為人『知悉』未公開消息」已足,此一爭議不論是在美國或是在我國均是眾說紛紜,本文將整理學說與實務見解,試圖找出解決此爭議之途徑。 然而觀諸各國,大多以豁免條款之訂定,來解決前述「利用」說與「知悉」說之爭議。我國在內線交易禁止方面目前亦有此一爭議問題,惟現行法並無豁免條款得以解決此之爭議。本文由內線交易理論出發,探討利用說與知悉說之爭議,並對於豁免條款之訂定加以探討,並分析美國、日本、香港之內線交易之豁免條款,提供建議以希冀為將來我國修法作參考。
Banning on insider trading is the most important part of ensuring investment. To protect its securities market, many countries formulate criminal law to stipulate insider trading, Taiwan is no exception. However, comparing with traditional crime, insider trading, a new criminal type seriously destroys securities market. Because theories of this new type of crime just develop in recent years; So many regulations of insider trading are not specific enough, which also leads to many controversies in the application of law. It is especially controversial in terms of the formation of insider trading. Does the fact that people use undisclosed message to do commercial counts for insider trading? Or does only the fact that people possess undisclosed message counts? There are many sayings related to this controversy either in United States or in Taiwan. This article reorganizes the theories and practical experience to find out the solution of this controversy. Many countries draw up Affirmative Defense to solve the controversy of “using” and “possessing” of undisclosed information. These controversies also exist in the regulation of insider trading in Taiwan. However, while confronting the controversies, we only adapt the current law since there is not such Affirmative Defense in the law of Taiwan. This article is started with Insider trading theories to discuss the controversy of using and possessing and the establishment of the Affirmative Defense. This article also analyses the Affirmative Defense of United States, Japan, and Hong Kong, and offer some recommendations as reference of revising the current laws in Taiwan.