Revisited“Proceeds of Crime”of Insider Trading─A Comment on the Grand Court Ruling 108 Tai-shan-da Tze No. 4349 of the Supreme Court

我國證券交易法於2004年修法時，於第171條第2項新增重大金融犯罪之所得金額達新臺幣一億元以上者，應加重處罰，將該罪刑責由原先的三年以上十年以下有期徒刑加重為七年以上有期徒刑。惟此增訂條文與立法理由中均未明確說明內線交易犯罪所得之計算方法，影響刑事被告之權益甚鉅，甚導致若干案例歷經十數年仍無法確定。嗣於2018年1月，證券交易法再次修正，雖將該條款「犯罪所得」之文字修正為「因犯罪獲取之財物或財產上利益」，欲將我國刑法沒收概念下的「犯罪所得」與證券交易法第171條第2項規定之「犯罪所得」作出區別，惟針對內線交易犯罪所得之計算仍存在未解之疑義。最高法院大法庭於2021年5月19日作成108年度台上大字第4349號刑事裁定，就內線交易犯罪所得如何計算揭櫫計算標準，上開裁定解決目前實務上若干裁判分歧的問題，但也留下部分尚待解決的問題。本文謹針對我國證券交易法第171條第2項規定之立法背景、立法目的與過往指標性案例進行回顧與整理，同時參酌外國立法例與其實際上之量刑狀況，就內線交易犯罪所得之計算疑義進行比較探討，期能作為我國未來實務運作或修法時之參考與借鏡。

When the Securities and Exchange Act (“SEA”) was amended in 2004, the penalty of substantial financial crimes, including insider trading, regulated in Para. II of Article 171 was raised from 3-10 years in prison to not less than 7 years where the gain of the offense is NT 100M or more. However, neither the SEA nor its ratio legis provided a specific criterion to calculate the Proceeds of Crime, the gain, from insider trading. While the SEA was amended in 2018, the language“Proceeds of Crime”in Para. II of Article 171 was revised into“the value of property or property interests gained by the commission of an offense”. Nevertheless, the issue of how to calculate the value of property or property interests gained by the commission of an offense remained unclear.To unify the split opinions among courts regarding the abovementioned controversy, the Grand Court of the Supreme Court laid down the criteria in its Ruling 108 Tai-shan-da Tze No. 4349 on May 19th, 2021. In terms of realized gain, the Grand Court adopted the“Actual Gain Approach”, while with regard to unrealized gain, the Court took the“Presumptive Gain Method”to measure the amount of gain from insider trading. The Ruling has, without a doubt, resolved the split-court controversy in one way, yet, left some unresolved issues in another.This article reviews the split opinions regarding calculation of gains from insider trading among Taiwanese courts and compares with those in the U.S. courts and practices. Finally, the Author analyzes the pros and cons of different approaches adopted by the courts at issue and try to provide suggestions in response to the Grand Court’s Ruling and for further law amendment.