論證券詐欺次要行為人之民事責任

The Civil Liability of Secondary Actors for Securities Fraud

林詩玶(Shih-Ping-Lin)

指導教授 ： 張心悌

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2014年)

摘要

我國證券交易法之立法目的係為發展國民經濟，並保障投資。但如何兼顧發展經濟與保障投資而在其中求得平衡，卻是立法與實務所面臨的最大困難。其中，證券交易法的民事賠償機制，主要即在追求填補被害人損失以保障投資與促進資本形成之發展經濟此二目的。
　　一般證券詐欺案件中，結果之發生固然主要係由於主要行為人之行為所致，然而在整個過程中，往往涉及次要行為人的幫助行為，最終導致投資人的損害，惟次要行為人對於不實財報多無編製、查核、公告之權限，亦非募集、發行、私募與買賣有價證券之相對人，是否可以證券交易法之民事責任相繩，實有疑義。我國實務有判決就次要行為人之部分，以責任主體之限制而排除其證券交易法之責任，但認為其行為與投資人之損害間仍具有相當因果關係，故仍須依一般侵權行為之規範負責，似乎有以民法侵權行為規定架空證券交易法之可能。
　　研究我國證券交易法第20條之證券詐欺法制，本文認為其規範對象應包括為詐欺行為之任何人；傳統實務上關於第20條責任主體之辯論方向過於限縮，因此本文認為在其他構成要件該當的情形下，任何人均可能須依據該條而負損害賠償責任。在肯定次要行為人須負民事責任之前提下，如何建立其規範架構方能兼顧發展經濟與保障投資兩方面，本文認為可由其民事責任構成要件之嚴格解釋，亦即主觀要件限於故意並搭配比例責任制來達成。在課與次要行為人民事賠償責任之同時，期能從構成要件之區別規範及限縮其責任範圍，同時兼顧保障投資與促進經濟發展，以真正落實證券交易法之目的。

關鍵字

證券詐欺；次要行為人；證券詐欺次要民事責任；配合廠商；虛偽交易；幫助；教唆

並列摘要

As promoting the sound development of the securities market relied on a perfect legislation of securities law, and each capital market in each country had been damaged resulted from a global financial crisis, the purpose of this thesis was to make the legislation of securities law in Republic of China(Taiwan) more competitive by overviewing laws concerning securities again and improving the existing laws.
　　Securities and Exchange Act of Taiwan was enacted for the purpose of promot-ing the national economic development and the protection of investors, but it was a difficult problem to have the best of both worlds. Paragraph 1 of Article 20 in Securities and Exchange Act provides that, during the public offering, issuing, private placement, or trading of securities, there shall be no misrepresentations, frauds, or any other acts which are sufficient to mislead other persons. And Paragraph 2 of this Article provides that, The financial reports or any other relevant financial or business documents filed or publicly disclosed by an issuer in accordance with this Act shall contain no misrepresentations or nondisclosures. Paragraph 3 of this Article and Article 20-1 further stipulate for the civil liability of violation.
　　How to identify the “responsible actor” of civil remedies for Article 20 violation is a highly contentious question. The traditional debate on the responsible actor concept was misguided, and anyone who was involved in the securities fraud scheme is likely to be held liable for the damages if other elements are met.
　　In fact, in securities fraud cases, the investors’ damages were not only resulted from the primary actor’s act, but also the secondary actor’s assistance. However, as the secondary actor was not entitled to create or announce a financial statement, and he was also not the counterparty of public offering, issuing, trading or private placement and trading of securities, there was ambiguity about the secondary actor’s civil liability under Securities and Exchange Act. In Taiwan, the courts held that although the secondary actor wasn't liable for his actions under Securities and Exchange Act, he might still liable under tort law. As a result, Securities and Exchange Act could be impracticable under this situation.
　　In conclusion, this thesis recommends secondary actor shall be held liable for damages under Article 20 and 20-1 in Securities and Exchange Act. And each should be held responsible proportionately to his own participation in the fraud, so it could meet the purposes of the economic development and the protection of investors.

並列關鍵字

Central Bank ； Stoneridge ； Janus ； Civil Liability of Secondary Actors ； Securities Fraud ； aiders ； abettors

參考文獻

余雪明，證券交易法，證券暨期貨市場發展基金會，2000年。

陳春山，證券交易法論，五南，2012年10月。

劉連煜，新證券交易法實例研習，元照出版有限公司，2012年9月。

王志誠，發行市場證券詐欺規範之解釋及適用，律師雜誌，第297期，2004年6月。

張心悌，證券詐欺之因果關係與損害賠償─板橋地方法院九十六年度金字第二號民事判決，台灣本土法學雜誌，101期，2007年12月。