我國證券流通市場操縱行為刑事責任之研究

The Research on the Criminal Liability of Security Secondary Market Manipulation in Taiwan

林佳漢(Chia Han Lin)

指導教授 ： 王皇玉

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201603758

摘要

本文嘗試整理我國證券流通市場操縱行為刑事責任後，發現到無論是學說或實務上對此一操縱行為禁止條款構成要件之解釋適用情形分歧嚴重，在立法論上的討論同樣難以聚焦，見解不一而足，此等問題之關鍵，乃在於本罪保護法益為加以釐清確定，從而難以讓法益概念在刑法系統內發揮其該有之體系梳理作用；因此本文對本罪之保護法益加以檢討，整理美國與我國學說、實務上所提及之各種可能的本罪保護法益後，一共列舉八大法益，經過本文剖析後認為真正具有法益適格性且係操縱行為禁止條款所欲保護之法益僅有「個人財產法益」而已，如此針對單一法益進行保護之刑事立法，方不至於在立法論及解釋論上無從依循；本於，本罪之保護法益為個人財產法益此一基本立場，本文對本罪重新思考，先援引外國法上之討論，檢討操縱行為之定義、有無管制必要及倘若有管制必要是否應以法律加以管制等等前提性之問題，進而得出典型的操縱行為態樣，尤其係以真實交易為之者，不僅有管制必要，且應以法律加以管制之結論，緊接著的問題便係那是否應特別訂定「操縱行為禁止條款」加以管制之，操縱行為之內涵係以詐欺或欺罔為其要素，因此應考慮回歸詐欺規定加以管制之可能性，有鑑於傳統詐欺罪之構成要件係以「意圖不法所有或獲利」為主觀意圖要件，而操縱行為之意圖亦有可能僅係為損害他人財產而為，且傳統詐欺罪之故意內涵僅針對特定人之財產法益，因此不應回歸傳統詐欺罪，而應回歸證券詐欺罪處理，惟，現今證券詐欺罪之實定法規定則應加上「意圖不法獲利或損害他人財產」之意圖要件且參考美國之作法授權證券金融主管機關訂定行政命令之權限，以資因應各種變化萬千的操縱行為態樣。

關鍵字

操縱市場 ； 操縱行為 ； 刑事責任 ； 證券流通市場 ； 法益保護

並列摘要

Both in court and in school, the interpretation and application of code 155 of the Securities Exchange Law are in extreme dispute. Even on legislative level, the differences between the scholars are not at any hope of dissapearring. The root of this problem is that we are not quite sure what legal good we are trying to protect through the criminal liabilities this regulation could enforce upon. Even if we do know what legal good this regulation is really protecting, is this legal good a legitimate one? Is it really worth protecting by imposing criminal liabilities? Those would be the next questions. This paper enlisted all the legal goods theories that have been pointed out on this issue by Taiwanese and American scholars, after analyzing them, only “personal property legal good”is the legitimate legal good of this regulation is the conclusion of this paper. Based on the aforementioned understanding, this paper rethinks the definition of manipulation on the stock market and if it is truly a problem worth regulating, and if it is a problem, if it is worth regulating by criminal law. After apprehending that the nature of manipulation is fraud, not only does it need to be regulated but also needs to be regulated by criminal law. The fraud clause in Taiwanese criminal law calls for a specific intent of the wrongdoer, the wrongdoer has to have an intent of gainging interests. On the other hand, the fraud clause in Securities Exchange Law has no words for a specific intent; however, this way the scope of the fraud clause in Securities Exchange Law might be to broad. In conclusion, this paper suggests that the fraud clause in Secutities Exchange Law adds “intent of illegal gaining of interests or damaging the interests of other’s”to its words.

並列關鍵字

market manipulation ； manipulation ； criminal liabilities ； stock market ； legal good

參考文獻

44. 張益輔（2011）。〈證券市場「散布流言或不實資料」操縱行為之探討〉，《證交資料》，589期，頁48-71。

4. 余雪明（2000）。《證券交易法》。台北：證券暨期貨市場發展。

30. 周漾沂（2012）。〈從實質法概念定義法益：以法主體性論述為基礎〉，《臺大法學論叢》，41卷3期，頁981-1053。

29. 周漾沂（2008）。〈論「煽惑他人犯罪或違背法令」之處罰理由〉，《臺大法學論叢》，37 卷 4 期，頁347-389。

36. 陳文禹（2008）。〈操縱股價犯罪之構成要件—評最高法院九六年台上字第一零四四號判決〉，《台灣本土法學雜誌》，104期，頁342-348。