透過您的圖書館登入
IP:52.91.84.219
  • 學位論文

論證券詐欺之民事責任

Civil Liabilities of Securities Fraud

指導教授 : 賴英照
共同指導教授 : 張志銘(Chin-Ming Chang)

摘要


我國證券市場自2000年後上市公司弊案頻傳,其損害證券市場之公平,亦戕害大眾投資人信心,若放任為之,處於資訊弱勢地位的投資人必然相繼退出市場,企業便無法募集足夠資金營運,導致資本市場之萎縮,社會整體競爭力因此下滑。是故,如何防範證券市場上之不法行為,成為現階段亟需面對的重要課題。 近來證券市場上主要或重大的不法行為,莫過於證券詐欺行為,若公司以虛偽、詐欺之方法,使投資人產生誤信,造成投資人之損害,則公司須負證券詐欺之民事責任、刑事責任及行政責任。從經濟上的角度,多數投資人僅著眼能否獲得民事上的補償,若課以違法者刑事責任或行政處罰,雖可產生嚇阻效果,但此等效果對受害人並無實質利益。令人惋惜的是,我國證券管理上,偏重於行政監督與刑事責任,相對忽略民事責任,探究以往民事責任較被忽視之原因,並非法律上欠缺損害賠償之請求權基礎,而是實務上運作使然。 在民事責任中,由投資人就其損害對被告提起訴訟請求賠償,程序為投資人所主導,原告則需承擔相當程度的舉證責任,因此「因果關係」的認定即扮演重要的關鍵。而證券市場具有其特殊性,若依傳統侵權行為由原告負擔舉證責任,原告幾乎無可能透過訴訟獲得賠償。因此,在證券詐欺賠償中,我國學者及實務常引用美國判例學說「欺騙市場理論」作為理論依據,導出舉證責任轉換之效果,雖然實務有此問題意識,但仍有諸多見解在論證上發生前後不一致的情形,影響投資人之保護及交易市場秩序之維持。此外,在責任性質、行為人主觀之範圍、賠償義務人、損害賠償金額之計算,實務上亦有見解分歧之問題。 職是之故,本文欲就一般證券詐欺之行為、行為與損害之因果關係及損害範圍作為論述之核心。首先於第貳章論述證券詐欺之理論基礎,從不實陳述基本內涵解釋證券詐欺之輪廓,以此作為延伸至第参章探討責任性質、賠償義務人之主觀要件及判斷標準。第肆章則論述證券詐欺之因果關係理論,我國可否承襲歐陸法系責任成立之事實上因果關係,去吸收美國法上之交易因果關係?承襲責任成立之法律上因果關係與責任範圍之因果關係,去吸收美國法上之損失因果關係?第伍章探究交易因果關係之理論基礎,並且論證欺騙市場理論是否應建立於有效率市場上?該理論可否適用於我國證券市場?第陸章爰就美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院及最高法院之見解加以介紹及分析損失因果關係,並檢討事前觀點與事後觀點,希冀從中尋求最適認定標準。第柒章則分析淨損差額法與毛損益法對於加害者責任範圍之影響並提出見解。最後於第捌章提出結論,期望藉由本文之探討,可降低司法實務判決的矛盾與衝突,落實嚇阻不法及填補損害之功能。

並列摘要


The corruption of exchange listed companies in our country’s stock market keep pouring in since 2000. It not only injures the equity of the stock market, but also harms the confidence of investors. If we keep indulging it, the investors who are placed in the position of the information minority would withdraw from the market one after another. It would make the enterprise unable to collect enough working capital, causing the capital market atrophied and the social competition ability will fall. Therefore, how to guard against illegal act on the stock market becomes an important topic that we must face at present stage. Recently, the main illegal act of stock market is securities fraud behavior. If a company uses false or fraud means, makes the investors arise misunderstanding and causes the damage of investors, the company must take civil liabilities, criminal liabilities and administration liabilities for its securities fraud. From the economic point of view, the majority of investors only fix attention on whether they acquire the civil compensation. Imposing crime liabilities or administration punishment on delinquents would produce determent effect, but has no substantial benefit for victim. However, the stock market management of our country is over-emphasized to the administrative supervision and the criminal liabilities, so the civil liabilities is neglected. The reason that the civil liabilities is ignored before, is not because of the law lack of the foundation of the right of claim of compensation, but operation of actual situation. In the civil liabilities, investors take an action for their damage against the defendant to claim on compensation. The litigation procedure is predominated by the investor, so the plaintiff must undertake the burden of proof, therefore affirming "causation" between the parties playing an important role in litigation procedure.The stock market has its feature ; if we use traditional torts claim for the securities fraud compensation, the burden of proof is undertaken by the plaintiff. It is almost imposible for plaintiff to get compensation through the litigation.So, in the compensation case of securities fraud, studies and judge in our country often quote American judicial precedent and "fraud-on-the-market theory" as a basis theories, leading to the conversion burden of proof.Although our judges have consciousness on this issue, there are still lack of opinion consistency. This will make an influence on the protection of the investor and the maintenance of the bargain market.Besides, there're still dissension on the nature of liability, such as, the scope of behavior person's subjectivity, the affirmance of compensator and the calculation of compensation. Therefore, the core of this paper is general securities fraud, causation and the scope of damage. Chapter 2 discuss the theories of securities fraud, explain the outline of securities fraud from the intension of misrepresentation, and extend it to Chapter 3 to discuss nature of liability, subjective requirement of compensator and judge standard. In Chapter 4, we talk about the causation theories of securities fraud, discussing if we could combine cause-in-fact of establish of liability from continental law system and transaction causation from American law? if we could combine cause-in-law of establish of liability and the causation of extent of responsibility and loss causation from American law? In Chapter 5, we talk about the theories of transaction causation, demonstrate if fraud-on-the-market theory should be established on efficient market and if the theories could be adopted on our stock market. Chapter 6 introduces American Federal trial court and Supreme Court decision, analyzes loss causation and review the standpoint from before and after the event, craving the most suitable affirming standard. Chapter 7 analyzes the difference between out-of-the-pocket method and gross income loss and the impact to the injuring party’s liabilities scope. Chapter 8 is the conclusion. This paper is expected to help reduce the antinomy and conflict of judicial decision, deter illegality and fill up damage.

參考文獻


賴英照(2004),〈建立更完備的民事責任機制〉,《律師雜誌》,第297期。
王志誠(2004),〈發行市場證券詐欺規範之解釋與適用〉,《律師雜誌》,第297期。
陳怡如(2009),〈論董事之忠實義務在我國公司法之落實與發展〉,國立成功大學法律研究所碩士論文。
林文里(2009),〈證券市場資訊不實損害賠償的因果關係與責任範圍〉,國立台北大學法律學系博士論文。
楊家欣(2006),〈以因果關係為起點─論我國證券詐欺法制之未來〉,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。

延伸閱讀


國際替代計量