透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.236.64.8
  • 學位論文

證券交易法上反操縱條款之研究 -以「虛偽買賣」為中心

A Study of Anti-Manipulation Provision of the Securities and Exchange Act -Focusing on Matched Orders and Wash Sales

指導教授 : 張天一

摘要


我國證券交易法的立法宗旨,明文規定於第1條,即「發展國民經濟,並保障投資」。證券市場從經濟學理論的角度來看,是一個完全競爭的市場,任何人可以隨時自由的進出,並且市場上每種有價證券交易價格的形成,完全由市場的「供給需求」決定,形成所謂的「公平價格」,使每個投資人都能立於「公平的地位上」進行交易,而此「公平性」亦是證券市場健全發展的重要因素。任何人意圖操縱有價證券交易價格,扭曲市場價格機能,均應被禁止,以避免行為人藉由製造交易活絡表象,吸引投資大眾買賣致受有損害,再從中獲利。我國證券交易法第155條,即是針對此種操縱市場行為所訂定的禁止規範,通稱為「反操縱條款」。 反操縱條款的落實,對於證券市場的公平性、投資大眾的保護,以及交易秩序的維持,影響重大。就目前證券市場觀察,操縱行為佔證券犯罪相當高的比例,但於檢察官提起公訴及各級法院的審理過程中,對於反操縱條款的構成要件,於個案事實適用法律的認定標準上,有所出入,致使最終判決結果有所不同,是對於法條構成要件的解釋不同所導致?還是根本的法條規定上有所遺漏或不當?有其研究的必要性。 本論文的研究內容,主要係證券交易法第155條第1項第3款相對委託,及同條項第5款沖洗買賣,如何認定此兩款操縱行為的客觀違法事證,及如何檢視行為人的主觀意圖,均是常見的爭議所在。¬而反操縱條款的立法,主要參考美國1934年證券交易法,故本論文欲藉由外國立法例對於操縱行為禁止的法制規範、學者於期刊發表文章的見解,以及實務判決於個案適用法律的標準等,整理歸納,針對相對委託及沖洗買賣的條文內容架構,進行比較研究與分析,檢視其構成要件,觀察現行規範下解釋及適用的爭議問題所在,提出解決對策。

並列摘要


The fundamental goal of formulation of the Securities and Exchange Act of Taiwan, R.O.C., which is expressly stated in Article 1, is to “develop the nation’s economy and safeguard nation’s investment”. In the view of the theory of economy, the Securities and Exchange Market is completely competitive allowing people’s free trading activities; besides, the transaction price, also called “the moderate price”, is perfectly determined by market’s supply and demand. It allows every investor to trade with fairness, which is an important factor of the integrity development of Securities and Exchange Market as well. Manipulation of Securities and Exchange Market transaction prices and undermining the integrity and fairness of the offering process shall be strictly prohibited to avoid certain participants attempting to profit themselves by creating artificial, false or misleading appearances to attract other investors’ trading intention and cause loss. To prohibit this market manipulation behavior, Securities and Exchange Act of Taiwan, R.O.C., Article 155, is enacted and is generally called “Anti-manipulation Provision”. The influence of the execution of Anti-Manipulation Provision is magnificent on trading fairness in Securities and Exchange Market, protection for public investors and maintenance of trading order. As observation into the current market, the manipulation crime takes the majority of all financial crimes. However, during prosecutor’s litigation and court trials, various acknowledgements of constitutive elements of Anti-Manipulation Provision sometimes cause different final judgments. Hence, it is necessary to find out the root causes of various judgments. Is it caused by the different interpretation of constitutive elements of provision? Or does it just happen due to inappropriate and omitted provision? The subject matter of this essay is how to affirm the two manipulations, the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 155 Paragraph 1 Item 3, Matched Orders, and Item 5, Wash Sales, with objective irregularity proof and human’s subjective intention. The formulation of Anti-Manipulation Provision mainly refers to “Securities Acts of 1934” of the United States. Therefore, by means of examining the constitutive elements of the two items with foreign legislative examples of manipulation prohibition, interpretation of scholars’ academic journals and laws criterion of final judgments of individual cases, controversial issues shall be clarified and the solution shall be raised.

參考文獻


3.吳光明,證券交易法論,三民,十版,2011年1月。
9.何曜琛,證券市場操縱行為之認定與要件—簡評最高法院九六年台上字第一O四四號判決—,台灣本土法學雜誌,第97期,2007年8月。
4.臺灣高等法院91年度上訴字第284號刑事判決
15.最高法院91年度台上字第5459號刑事判決
17.最高法院92年度台上字第987號刑事判決

延伸閱讀