公司財報不實之地雷——淺談其刑事責任

The Bomb of Financial Statement–Study on the Criminal Responsibility for Corporation

資本市場公開資訊的揭露上，以求公司內部人及外部投資人及債權人能獲得一致資訊，消弭資訊不對稱之情形，尤其是財務報告對投資大眾做投資決策時更有重大影響，所以如何確保資訊揭露的及時性、正確性及完整性，證券管理法規有明確的規範。我國在商業會計法、刑法及證券交易法為避免所揭露之財務報告及各種財務或業務文件有虛偽不實之情形，於相關法規訂有相關處罰之規定。目前相關法規對財報不實以刑責之規定是否合理，有無達到遏止財報不實行為之效果，抑或是否有法條規範不明確，造成公司動輒得咎，更甚者若公司主事者不小心觸法，公司或行為人是否因法條規範僵硬，缺乏讓公司或其主事者可改過自新機會，扼殺公司未來發展機會，應也不符合當初立法目的。證券交易法(下稱本法)對財報不實處罰目前有二個法條規範，產生同一部法律二個法條對於一犯罪行為都設有禁止與處罰的競合問題，本文擬以個案分析探討，針對本法第171條第1項第1款及證交法第174條第1項第5款財報不實的規範競合問題研究，從本法第20條、第171條及第174條的立法沿革切入，找出規範競合的源頭，並參考學者見解、刑事司法判決觀點重新思考問題，嘗試提出新的觀點，以釐清我國證券交易法中關於財報不實刑事處罰的規範架構。

In order to reduce information asymmetry among the company, investors and creditors and to let all of them get the consistent information, the government has set up related rules for disclosing public information in capital market, especially on the financial statements which have significant effects when investors make their invest decisions. Therefore, how to ensure the timeliness, accuracy and completeness of disclosing public information, the stock exchange related laws and regulations give definite rules to follow. In Taiwan, for avoiding the financial statements and related financial or business documents to be fraud, the corresponding penalties have been stipulated in Business Entity Accounting Act, Criminal Code, and Securities and Exchange Act. However, the reasonability for the present related laws to impose legal liability on the financial statement fraud should be questioned. Could the laws and regulations have the effect to halt the financial statement fraud happened? Or is it possible that due to the standards of laws and regulations are unclear and let the company to be blamed for whatever it did? Furthermore, if in-charge people contravene the law unintentionally, the company or actors may not give the opportunity to them for reforming, this might prevent company’s future development opportunities and also not conform to the original legislation goals. The Securities and Exchange Act (“the Act”) has two articles dealing with penalties on financial statements fraud. This arouses the problems of concurrence that the Act has two articles, and both of them have prohibitions and penalties on the same criminal behavior. This research has tried using case study to discuss the problems of concurrence of criminal penalties in the Article 171.1.1 and Article 174.1.5 of the Act for financial statement fraud. Starting from the legislative background of Article 20, Article 171 and Article 174 of the Act to find out the source of the concurrence. Meanwhile, reconsidering this problem from consulting scholars’opinions and criminal justice view, and then trying to give new points for clarifying the criminal penalty structures of financial statement fraud for the Act.