臺灣股權式群眾募資法制之建構────以美國法之比較為中心

The Construction of Equity Crowdfunding Regulations in Taiwan────A Comparative Analysis with American Law

趙宸緯(Chen-Wei Chao)

指導教授 ： 黃銘傑

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/科際整合法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700617

摘要

中小企業是國家經濟的支柱，鼓勵創新創業可以帶動經濟成長，開放融資管道則是健全創業環境的重要一環。群眾募資的發展，改變了傳統的募資模式，其中，股權式群眾募資（下簡稱「股權群募」）給予新創融資新的想像。希望透過股權群募，革新創業投資運作方式，引進公開發行市場中的一般投資人，補足新創初早期投資不足的缺口。然而，股權群募涉及證券之公開發行，受法律高度管制，有賴相關法律的鬆綁方可施行。因此，股權式群眾募資法制的建構將影響開放新創融資管道的成效。臺灣已於2015年5月開放股權群募，但是施行以來使用率極低，未能反映市場需求。2016年，時值臺灣於1月初修改股權群募法制，美國於5月中正式施行股權群募。本研究希望透過比較臺灣與美國建構股權群募法制的途徑與內容，探究臺灣股權群募成效不彰的可能原因。

研究發現臺灣股權群募呈現三種特殊樣貌。首先，以行政命令開放。臺灣運用行政命令開放股權群募，將股權群募定性為豁免證券而非豁免交易，錯置股權群募的法律本質。加上臺灣金融監理的特殊國情，由「財團法人中華民國證券櫃檯買賣中心」（下簡稱「櫃買中心」）代替主管機關「金融監督管理委員會」（下簡稱「金管會」）管理股權群募。此兩項措施形塑了之後兩種臺灣股權群募的特殊樣貌。其次，雙軌制。臺灣股權群募同時並存由櫃買中心營運之官方創櫃板與由證券商營運之民間股權群募。其三，混合制。臺灣股權群募同時融合允許透過網路進行一般勸誘或廣告之「線上私募」與以一般投資人為募資對象之「股權群募」。前述三種特殊設計的結果，導致臺灣股權群募的管制理念與標準混亂，促進資本形成與投資人保護間的天秤變動無常，無法忠實呈現股權群募的樣貌。因此，臺灣雖然快速開放施行股權群募，但是卻未能實際協助新創企業籌資，反而衍生更多的法律爭議，並且喪失全面檢視新創融資法制與健全豁免交易制度的機會。

為此，本研究提出五點建議。第一，臺灣股權群募之開放途徑，應從行政命令回歸立法，解決豁免性質、中介機構身分與管理單位等問題。第二，臺灣股權群募之運行架構，應從創櫃板與民間股權群募並行之雙軌制，回歸僅存民間股權群募之單軌制，依市場經濟運作。第三，臺灣股權群募之規範對象，應從融合線上私募與股權群募之混合制，回歸個別規範，一面於證交法私募專章開放一般勸誘或廣告行為，一面於證交法另訂股權群募專章，以正確回應市場需求。第四，在規劃方向上，應確認股權群募於新創融資階段中之定位，以知在股權群募中，促進資本形成與投資人保護間之合適平衡。第五，在規範內容上，應考量豁免交易之配套措施，以完善整體規範架構。此外，可在投資上限和財務揭露義務的部分納入級距化的設計，增加股權群募之使用彈性。

關鍵字

股權式群眾募資 ； 新創融資 ； 創業投資 ； 小額發行 ； 線上私募 ； 豁免證券 ； 豁免交易 ； JOBS Act ； CROWDFUND Act ； Regulation Crowdfunding ； Regulation A+ ； Rule 506(c) ； 創櫃板 ； 財團法人中華民國證券櫃檯買賣中心證券商經營股權性質群眾募資管理辦法

並列摘要

Since small and medium enterprises are economic pillars of a country and encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship promotes economic growth, providing more financing options is an important part of building a healthy entrepreneurial environment. The development of crowdfunding has changed traditional financing models; particularly, equity crowdfunding brings a new imagination to startup financing. It is hoped that equity crowdfunding can transform the fundraising models of venture capital by introducing non-accredited investors at public offering market to fill in the financing gaps in seed-stage and early-stage investment. However, equity crowdfunding relates to public offering, which is highly regulated by securities regulations. Equity crowdfunding can be conducted fully only if regulations are less restricted; thus the construction of equity crowdfunding regulations determines the effect of opening financing channels. Taiwan has authorized non-governmental equity crowdfunding in May 2015, but the utilization remains extremely low, which does not reflect the market demand properly. On January 8th 2016, Taiwan amended the “Taipei Exchange Regulations Governing the Conduct of Equity Crowdfunding by Securities Firms”, while on May 16th, the U.S. enforced Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg. CF). This thesis tries to compare the approaches and the contents of the construction of equity crowdfunding regulations in Taiwan and in the U.S., to investigate the possible reasons to explain the ineffectiveness of equity crowdfunding in Taiwan.

This study finds three unique features of equity crowdfunding regulations in Taiwan. First, Taiwan implements equity crowdfunding through executive orders, one of which determines equity crowdfunding to be exempt securities instead of exempt transaction; as a result, the legal nature of equity crowdfunding is misplaced. In addition, due to the special circumstances in Taiwan financial supervision, the Taipei Exchange (TPEx, GreTai Securities Market) supervises the equity crowdfunding on behalf of the Financial Supervisory Commission. These two pre-existing conditions lead to the second and third features below. Second, Taiwan's equity crowdfunding has a dual-track system: One is operated through the governmental Go Incubation Board for Startup and Acceleration Firms (GISA) run by TPEx and the other through the non-governmental equity crowdfunding run by securities firms. Third, equity crowdfunding in Taiwan is a hybrid system, which mixes both the private placements through online general solicitation or general advertisements and the equity crowdfunding which focuses on non-accredited investors. These three features cause the confusions in concepts and standards of the regulations, constantly bring changes to the balance between capital formation and investor protection. Consequentially, the regulations cannot faithfully reflect the actual appearance of equity crowdfunding. Although Taiwan quickly authorized equity crowdfunding, instead of bringing actual help to startup financing, it has in turns brought up more legal disputes and thus Taiwan has lost the opportunity to inspect the startup financing legal system comprehensively and to complete the exempt transaction legal system.

The conclusion of this thesis offers five proposals. First, the regulation should be amended from executive orders to legislation, in order to solve the problems of the nature of exemption, the identity of intermediary and the supervisory department. Second, the structure should be amended from a dual-track system to a single-track system that only allows non-governmental equity crowdfunding, in keeping with the market economy. Third, the authorities should split the hybrid system into separate regulations, in order to respond to the market demand correctly. In the private placement chapter under the Security Exchange Act, it should allow general solicitation and general advertisements under specific conditions; at the same time, equity crowdfunding should be an independent chapter in the Securities Exchange Act. Fourth, the overall planning should first determine the position of equity crowdfunding in startup financing cycle, in order to know the appropriate balance between capital formation and investor protection. Fifth, the regulations should adopt complementary measures of exempt transaction to complete the regulation structure, and include class interval of invest limitation and financial disclosure requirement to increase the flexibility of application.

並列關鍵字

equity crowdfunding ； entrepreneurial finance ； venture capital ； small offering ； online private placement ； exempt securities ； exempt transaction ； Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) ； Capital Raising Online While Deterring Fraud and Unethical Non-Disclosure Act of 2012 (CROWDFUND Act) ； Regulation Crowdfunding ； Regulation A+ ； Rule 506(c) ； Go Incubation Board for Startup and Acceleration Firms (GISA) ； Taipei Exchange Regulations Governing the Conduct of Equity Crowdfunding by Securities Firms

參考文獻

10. 蔡昌憲（2016）。〈我國股權性質群眾募資之管制發展：從創櫃板到民間募資平台〉，《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，45卷1期，頁249-313。

2. 王志誠（2015）。〈股權群眾募資之管制及法律責任────兼評最高法院一○四年度臺上字第二七四四號刑事判決及臺灣高等法院一○一年度金上重更(一)字第十九號刑事判決〉，《月旦裁判時報》，42期，頁34-55。

8. 劉連煜（2014）。〈未公開發行公司的證券可否是用證交法證券詐欺規範────最高法院101年度台上字第703號等刑事判決研究〉，《法令月刊》，65卷9期，頁1-9。

1. 王文宇、邵慶平（2016）。〈股權型群眾募資法制──兼論投資人保護〉，國立臺灣大學公共政策與法律研究中心104年度研究計畫案期末報告。載於：http://www.cppl.ntu.edu.tw/research/2015research/10406final.pdf。

7. Press Release, Securities and Exchange Commission (2011). SEC Announces Formation of Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies. Retrieved from http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-182.htm.