| 篇名 |
臺灣存託憑證是否經核定為有價證券之再釐清──以最高法院105年度台抗字第70號刑事裁定、最高法院107年度台上字第3170號刑事判決與最高法院111年度台抗字第537號刑事裁定為例 |
| 並列篇名 |
Reclarification on Whether Taiwan Depositary Receipt Has Been Approved as Securities in Taiwan─A Judicial Practice Analysis on the Supreme Court Ruling No. 105 Tai-Kang 70, 107 Tai-Shang 3170, and 111 Tai-Kang 537 |
| 作者 |
許兆慶、高子淵 |
| 中文摘要 |
臺灣存託憑證（TDR）是否業經主管機關核定為證券交易法第6條第1項之有價證券，涉及相關行為有無證券交易法相關刑事處罰規定適用之問題，目前國內判決實務見解，固然多數肯認臺灣存託憑證業經主管機關核定為證券交易法第6條第1項之有價證券，惟其認定理由存在分歧，考其緣由，實係因主管機關未曾遵循空白刑法之正當法律程序，正式核定臺灣存託憑證為證券交易法第6條第1項之有價證券，以致各級法院各自解讀，最高法院就此衍生亂象曾提出質疑，學界對此亦多有批評，至今究竟臺灣存託憑證是否經主管機關核定為證券交易法第6條第1項之有價證券，學界及實務界仍無定論。
本文嘗試彙整近期國內重要實務見解及學理討論，梳理目前理論和實務之分岐，以凸顯在現行理論和實務嚴重矛盾下所衍生之刑事處罰，恐與罪刑法定原則有違，並可能對人權產生嚴重侵害。此外本文亦依循司法院大法官歷來針對空白刑法、法律保留原則、明確性原則作成解釋之意旨，論證主管機關如欲核定臺灣存託憑證為證券交易法第6條第1項之有價證券，除須循正當法律程序為之外，更應以罪刑法定原則等相關憲法原理原則為依歸，始合乎現代法治國之要求。 |
| 英文摘要 |
Whether transactions on Taiwan Depositary Receipt (TDR) or related behaviors should be subject to the criminal penalties under the Securities and Exchange Act (“SEA”) hinges on the premise that whether TDR has been officially approved as securities under Article 6, Section 1 of the SEA by the competent authority. Although the majority of judgments have recognized TDR as securities approved by the competent authority, the rationale and reasoning of those judgments are different. The chaos is mainly because the competent authority has not formally approved TDR as securities based on Article 6, Section 1 of the SEA. Consequently, the said issue still remains a controversy in both the practice field and the academia.
This article aims to compile recent important judgments and academic opinions about the said issue, to clarify the existing bifurcation between theoretical and practical fields, and to point out the controversy that current practices may have violated human rights. Based on the spirit of the interpretations rendered by the Grand Justices regarding the Blank Form of Criminal Statute, the Principle of Legal Reservation, and the Intelligible Principle, this article also aims to elaborate that the competent authority should officially approve TDR as securities according to Article 6, Section 1 of the SEA so as to follow the Due Process of Law and observe the relevant constitutional principles such as Nulla Poena Sine Lege. |
| 起訖頁 |
57-83 |
| 關鍵詞 |
證券交易法、臺灣存託憑證、罪刑法定原則、明確性原則、正當法律程序、Securities and Exchange Act、Taiwan Depositary Receipt (TDR)、Nulla Poena Sine Lege、Intelligible Principle、Due Process of Law |
| 刊名 |
財產法暨經濟法 |
| 出版單位 |
臺灣財產法暨經濟法研究協會
|
| 期數 |
202312 (74期) |
| DOI |
10.53106/181646412023120074002 複製DOI DOI申請 |
| QRCode |
 |
| |
