我國關於內線交易之規範,僅有證券交易法第157-1條。為符合日新月異的證券交易市場,該條文歷經多次修正;然內線交易案件仍層出不窮,且觀察實務判決,發現內線交易案件縱使經檢察官提起公訴,其定罪率並不高,除因證券交易行為常涉及專業商業判斷,而對於行為人主客觀要件舉證困難外,實務判決上亦有一重大盲點,法院判決被告內線交易部分無罪,皆以:「法人並非證券交易法第157-1條第1項所定內線交易之犯罪主體。」為判決理由,故造成自然人被告無罪,亦不得訴追法人之內線交易責任,此見解成為法制之一大漏洞,進而引起本文研究之興趣。 且我國人頭公司之情況十分普遍,法院上述見解將成為有心人士脫免責任之利器,故本研究希望對此不當見解提出改正,並就我國現行對於法人內線交易責任規定不足之部分提出建議。 第二章為比較法規定之介紹,本文以美國法、歐盟指令、日本法為比較法之對象,對於各比較法國之立法沿革先為簡略之介紹,主要以各國內線交易行為主體之界定為討論重點。 第三章介紹我國現行關於內線交易行為主體之規定,提出現行法之缺漏,並討論以立法目的及規範實益而言,法人應否受內線交易禁止規定之規範。 第四章為內線交易行為責任之討論,其主要分為三部分,第一部分,以比較法方式,介紹各國目前對於內線交易責任類型;第二部分,介紹我國現行之民事及刑事責任。 第五章為我國實務案件之檢討與分析。 第六章為分析與立法建議,依我國現行內線交易行為主體規定,以法人為行為主體提出增修建議,且因我國法對於內線交易之行為責任類型僅有民、刑事責任,而本研究比較之其他國家皆有採納行政制裁制度,故提出我國增訂行政制裁之必要性及可行性;另討論以法人為內線交易行為主體,依我國現行證券交易法第179條之規定,有規範不足之問題。
The Securities Exchange Act of Article 157-1 was made for insider trading in 1988. The regulation had amended for many times because the securities market changed rapidly. However, the insider trading cases are still emerging. Except for the nature of economic crimes involves the professional business judgment. Another problem is the court held that clause only regulates nature persons. The court acquitted of all charges when the legal persons involved in insider dealing. This opinion will become a legal loophole. Therefore, the definition of “insider” is the topic in this study. This study hopes to correct the improper insights, and make recommendations on the deficiencies part of the provisions of the insider trading liabilities of legal persons. This study is limited to current American, European Union, and Japan law. Each constitutes a distinct legal tradition. It shall be illustrated that these differences, however, are not a barrier to the adoption of particular results. While there are differences of detail, the securities markets of each country are not fundamentally different as social and economic entities. The first part, the study introduces the theory and legislative evolution of Securities Exchange Act of Article 157-1 in Taiwan law. It introduces current legal system for insider trading in Taiwan law and makes recommendations to the existing law. Based on the above comparative laws, the study tries to discuss that the court’s opinion, the Article 157-1 only regulates nature person, is appropriate or not. The second part, this study tries to make some suggestions for the current insider trading liabilities in Taiwan law. There are civil and criminal liabilities for the behavior of the insider trading in Taiwan law. While the comparative law countries all adopt administrative sanctions regime, it also discusses the necessity and feasibility of the addition of administrative sanctions in Taiwan. This study introduces and analyzes the case which is involving legal persons, try to correct the court’s false opinion.