我國證券交易法第157條之1規定,當公司內部人獲悉未公開重大消息後,進行股票或其他具股權性質之有價證券買賣時,即會構成內線交易。且因其經濟刑法之特性,立法者頻繁的利用不確定法律概念來加以規範,但也使得司法實務就重大消息之範圍、重大性、有無成立確定時點、是否公開等問題認定歧異,再加上證據取得不易,最終使得內線交易難以定罪。 此外,證券交易法第157條之1雖有授權主管機關即金融監督管理委員會制定行政命令,惟因主管機關所制定之行政命令對於法院並無拘束力,故法院得選擇採納行政命令之規定,亦得選擇不予適用而以司法機關依法審判之立場為判斷。從而,人民(尤其是證券交易法第157條之1所規範之內部人)欲遵守法律,將因未有統一之定見供遵循,而感到無所適從。 職此,本論文擬先簡介美國法與歐盟法之內線交易規範及理論基礎,次就我國證券交易法第157條之1之相關規範做討論,再以此為基礎,對我國司法實務相關案例,探討我國法院對於「重大消息之成立時點」、「重大消息之公開」、「利用或獲悉標準」、「犯罪所得之計算」等爭議問題所採之看法是否妥適,進行整理與分析。最後,擬就上述問題提出本文之看法,期能提供法院實務及未來修法上之參考。
According to the provisions of “Section 157-1 of Securities and Exchange Law”,insiders who acknowledge nonpublic material information sell and purchase stocks or other equity-type securities, constitute insider trading. Because of the characteristics ofeconomic criminal law, legislators used a large number of indefinite legal concept,which causes court practice discrepancy between the scope, significance of materialinformation, whether the time at which inside information is formed, and whetherpublic and other issues, in addition the evidence not easy to obtain, making lowconviction rate in insider trading. Although provisions of “Section 157-1 of Securities and Exchange Law” authorize the administrative authority (Financial Supervisory Commission R.O.C.) to establishes administration rule, the court independent judgment can not binding on the rule. However it has confused many people, especially insider. Therefore, the thesis is intended to give a brief introduction of the theoretical basis for insider trading and related norms ofthe United States and the EuropeanUnion, and the provisions of “Section 157-1 of Securities and Exchange Law”. Then taking this as the foundation, organize and analyze relevant cases of our country court practice and discuss the viewpoints adapted by Taiwan courts toward “the time at which inside information is formed”, “announce material information to the public ”, “the standard of the use or knowing Possession”, “Calculation of proceeds of crime” and other controversial issues, are proper. At last, this thesis is to put forward some views on the above disputes, and to provide reference on Taiwan court practice and future amendments of the law.