| 中文摘要 |
就有關我國證券交易法內線交易罪主觀要件的認定，多年來存有「獲悉說」與「利用說」之爭議，我國法院多數採取「獲悉說」，意即行為人「獲悉」未公開之重大消息進而為股票之買賣即成立內線交易，無須進一步證明被告有「利用」重大消息。然而，行為人「獲悉」重大消息，並不必然足以推論行為人有觸犯內線交易罪之「故意」，上開法院見解應有誤會。本文認為基於禁止內線交易保護之立法目的及刑法無罪推定原則之要求，應採取「修正之獲悉說」，即當檢察官提出之證據足以證明被告獲悉消息時，依經驗法則及論理法則，即足以認定被告有利用消息而有犯罪故意。另一方面，被告亦可提出反證，抗辯其交易與內線消息無關而為犯罪故意，如此始符合公平正義。
This article is to explore the ''Knowing Possession'' versus ''Use'' debateon insider trading prohibition under Taiwan's Securities Exchange Act (the''Act''),f ocusing on: is an insider's knowing possession of the materialnonpublic information at the time of trade sufficient for insider tradingliability? Or a trader's actual use of the information in making his tradingdecision should be proved? In Taiwan,mos t courts support ''KnowingPossession standard'' which means that the prosecution is not required toprove the material nonpublic information was used by a person when he madethe purchase or sell. However,the author advocates ''Modified PossessionStandard'' based on the purpose of the Act prohibiting insider trading andthe principle of presumption of innocence. First,a person who was awareof the information at the time of trade does not mean he intentionally violatedthe law. Furthermore,under the doctrine of burden of proof,once theprosecution establishes the fact that a defendant was aware of informationshould be sufficient to prove that the defendant used the information becauseof the rules of experience and logic. On the other hand,the defendant cancontend that he did not intentionally violate the law by offering evidence thatthe trade was not on the basis of the information. |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
