| 篇名 |
再論內線交易持有說與利用說──從最高法院九十四年度台上字第一四三三號刑事判決（訊碟案）談起 |
| 並列篇名 |
The Insider Trading “Possession vs. Use” Debate Revisited─Comments on the Taiwan Supreme Court Criminal Judgment 94 Tai-Shang-1433 |
| 作者 |
黃章令 |
| 中文摘要 |
證券交易法第一百五十七條之一仿效美國財經法中的禁止內線交易。那麼內線交易責任是不是只需所謂的「獲悉」或「實際獲悉」影響股價的內線消息，再加之有證券交易行為就可以構成？簡言之，對此肯定者即持有說，反對者即利用說。臺灣司法實務界近乎直覺地站在持有說一邊，不但張冠李戴美國聯邦最高法院不予採用的平等取得資訊理論，而且僅從文義上孤立解釋證券交易法第一百五十七條之一，更削足適履地因舉證困難而否定利用說。所以本文將從訊碟案談起，整理最高法院近十多年在類似內線交易案件中主張持有說的主要理由，並結合美國內線交易理論的發展、挑戰以及其實務案例，進行比較分析，最後對訊碟案中最高法院持有說的理由一一反駁，以主張判斷內線交易責任易採用「利用說」。 |
| 英文摘要 |
Prohibiting insider trading is usually justified on fairness or equity grounds. The Article 157-1 of the Securities Exchange Law of Taiwan followed the U.S. trend regulates prohibition of insider trading. Under current the Securities Exchange Law of Taiwan, how to demonstrate unlawful insider trading liability? Some people believes that mere possession of material, nonpublic information at the time of trading is sufficient for one to invite liability, while some others, especially judicial practice of Taiwan, holds that the imposition of liability presupposes a further showing that the insider actually used the material, nonpublic information. This issue has been known as the “possession vs. use” debate. This article aims to start with rethinking the Taiwan Supreme Court Criminal Judgment 94 Tai-Shang-1433, adding some comparative insights into the use standard and the possession standard in theory and practice of the U.S. To this end, this article argues that we should adopt the view of the use standard that is required to prove a causal connection between the possessed material, nonpublic information and the insider’s trading. |
| 起訖頁 |
1-53 |
| 關鍵詞 |
內線交易、證券詐欺、持有說、利用說、因果關係、insider trading、fraud、possession standard |
| 刊名 |
成大法學 |
| 出版單位 |
國立成功大學法律學研究所；成大法學編輯委員會
|
| 期數 |
201606 (31期) |
| DOI |
10.3966/168067192016060031001 複製DOI DOI申請 |
| QRCode |
 |
| |
