論證券詐欺罪依構成要件而為體系之立法

證券詐欺，是在證券市場中所為之一切詐術行為，具有使一般投資大眾因此陷於錯誤而為證券交易之本質，除使此等可得特定多數之交易相對人，其個人財產受有損害外，因其表彰之個人財產法益遭受侵害之程度隨人數累積至一定量，乃致對於證券市場公正、公信之應有機能所表彰之超個人社會(經濟)法益亦有減損。因此證券詐欺罪實為獨立於刑法普通詐欺罪之特別規定。觀察證券交易法第20條第1項之文義，似乎僅限於證券交易之直接詐欺行為(狹義證券詐欺行為)，然觀其本質與規範體系，該條項應立於「反詐欺條款」之規範定位，且其涵蓋範圍及於一切符合「於證券市場中施以詐欺，而使一般投資大眾因此陷於錯誤而為證券交易」核心概念之廣義證券詐欺行為，包括狹義證券詐欺、財報不實、操縱市場、內線交易等行為。證券交易法第171條第1項第1款，將第20條第1項等禁止規定之違反，不分其違反情節與程度之不同即直接與刑事處罰規定連結，違反我國立於大陸法系之責任規範體系所應遵循各層次之原理原則，尤其是罪刑法定主義與刑罰明確性原則的要求，從人權保障和法益保護的角度來看亦有未符。因此，必須從刑事構成要件的觀點，重新檢視決定是否該當證券詐欺罪之構成要件要素，包括行為主體、行為客體、行為階段、行為本身之外在不法構成要件要素、行為結果及因果關係等客觀構成要件，以及至少達雙重未必故意程度之主觀構成要件。另證券詐欺罪既為普通詐欺罪之特別規定，同時保障個人與超個人法益，故應具有結果犯之特性，並有「足以影響市場秩序」之隱藏構成要件。回顧我國現行證券詐欺法制，實際上仍存在許多尚待通盤檢討與改善之處。再者，憲法第80條要求法官依法應獨立審判，故在現行法制尚未修正、補充的情況下，國內司法實務上對於證券詐欺相關個案，應以如何的思維與邏輯加以判斷，才能維繫人權保障與刑事法之責任規範體系，更是至關重要。是故，無論在立法技術上或是實務認定上，皆須從根本加以思考與檢討，以期尋求較為妥適與符合應然法律邏輯的解決方案。由於現有法律體系框架現實上不易打破，建議應將違反禁止規定外之刑事構成要件要素納入規定，對加重處罰要件的衡量方針予以明文，並適度將相關規定重新安插至更符合規範體系的位置。司法實務上亦應審度個案事實之涵括範圍與競合問題，盡可能以合於目的性限縮解釋的方法適用法律，並組成經濟刑事司法專業特別小組，金管會亦配合責成建置金融機構帳戶資料庫，以能在各個相關個案的調查與審理時，能夠兼顧人權保障、真實發現與訴訟經濟。若從長遠來看，則建議以「行為導向」為主軸，採行「偏重構成要件與法律效果」規範集中化之立法技術，對證券法制規範體系與內容為通盤之檢討與重整，以建構規範體系嚴謹、構成要件明確之立法結構。

關鍵字

證券詐欺；反詐欺條款；刑事構成要件；法律效果；規範體系；規範集中化；立法技術

並列摘要

Securities Fraud, defining all fraudulent conducts in securities market with the essence that makes general investor do wrongful securities exchange, not only makes qualified majority of the trading counterpart personal property loss but also causes the diminishment of the proper super-personal social (economic) interests on fair, public functions of securities market because of the personal property interests accumulated to a certain amount. Thus, securities fraud crime is indeed special provisions independent of the general fraud in criminal law. It seems that the meaning of Paragraph 1, Article 20 of the Securities and Exchange Act is limited in directly fraudulent conducts on securities exchange (securities fraud in a narrow sense). But, if we check the fact and the system of norm, this must state as “Antifraud Provisions” position and contain securities fraud in a broad sense entirely with core concept “imposing fraud in securities market to make general investor do wrongful securities exchange acts” inclusive of securities fraud, financial statement fraud, market manipulation & inside trading etc.. Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, Article 171 of the Securities and Exchange Act, which connects the violation of prohibitive provisions (like Paragraph 1, Article 20) and criminal penalty provisions directly regardless of various circumstances and degree, violates the principles and rules of liability normative system on our civil law system, especially in Nulla poena sine lege and the principle of clarity and definiteness of punishment, and the protection of human rights and legal interests so on. Therefore, we must recheck the criminal constitutive elements of securities fraud on the view of “Tatbestand”, including objective elements (like subject, object, phase, external illegality, result & causation etc.) and subjective elements (double eventual intent at least). Besides, since securities fraud crime is special to the general fraud and both protects personal and super-personal interests, so it should have the character of consequential offence and hidden constitutive elements “being sufficient to affect the market order.” Actually, our current legal system of securities fraud still has many points to think and improve conprehensively. Also, judges are supposed to hold trials independently in accordance with law on Article 80 of the Constitution. So it’s very essential to think how can judicial circles judge related cases of securities fraud to protect human rights and normative system of criminal liability. Hence, we must think and review both legislative technique and judicial decision on basic viewpoint deeply to find the more appropriate and more legal logical solutions. Since it’s hard to break through the existing legal framework in reality, we suggest that criminal constitutive elements outside prohibitive provisions and measure policy of aggravating elements must be stipulated into legislation, and the relevant provisions must be reinserted the position of the relevant provisions more in line with the normative system. It should take care to examine the range and concurrence of the fact, to apply law on purposive restrictions as possible and to form economic criminal judicial professional special groups on judicial practice; FSC should also set up financial institutions account database. Consequently, we can be able to give consideration to human rights, the real discovery and litigation economy in the investigation and the hearing of all relevant cases. In the long term, we should establish a strict, well-definite constitutive legislative structure focusing on “action-orientation” and adopt the legislative technique of norm-centralization “emphasizing in constitutive elements and legal validity” to reconstruct an overall powerful system and contents of securities legislation.

並列關鍵字

securities fraud ； antifraud provisions ； criminal constitutive elements ； legal validity ； normative system ； norm-centralization ； legislative technique

參考文獻

1. 吳元曜著(2007)，《證券詐欺刑事責任之研究》，國立臺灣大學國家發展研究所博士論文。

3. 陳志龍著(2009)，〈超越合理懷疑與證據證明〉，《臺北大學法學論叢》，第69期，頁187-224。

18.曾宛如著(2012)，《證券交易法原理》，六版，台北：元照出版。

5. 曾宛如著(2013)，〈證券交易法之現狀與未來─期許建構體例完善的證券法規〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第217期，頁93-107。

11.謝立功著(1999)，〈我國防制洗錢法制之省思〉，《律師雜誌》，第239期，頁57-69。

國際替代計量

論證券詐欺罪依構成要件而為體系之立法

全文下載

主題瀏覽