證交法上強制公開收購制度合憲性之研究

A Study on the Constitutionality of Mandatory Offer systems

系所名稱：法律學系碩士在職專班 學位別：碩士 畢業學年：108年 指導教授：李惠宗 基於財產權社會義務，個人財產權並非不得加以限制，基於公益需求，國家得以法律限制人民財產權行使。而證券交易法要求「預定取得一定比例」股權，應以公開收購方式取得有價證券（下稱強制公開收購制度），實屬國家高權手段介入私經濟行為。人民應遵守之法規範，立法者固有形成自由或稱立法裁量，但同時亦負有維持立法前後一貫性的義務，形成立法者自我拘束法理。以體系正義觀點審查證券交易法第43條之1第3項及授權命令所架構之強制公開收購制度，立法者選擇以刑事制裁手段作為確保義務履行機制，自屬立法裁量合法範圍，與最上階證券交易法立法目的「發展經濟及保障投資人」難謂無合理關聯；強制公開收購義務構成要件「共同預定取得達一定比例」，屬一般受規範成員判斷理解能力所及，是以違反強制公開收購義務之構成要件及法律效果應臻明確，然同條第4項「一定比例」及「一定條件」授權內容、目的、範圍究應為何，均未有明，有違授權明確性原則。另觀察強制公開收購義務構成要件於不同法體系間諧和性，發現「共同」二字具多文義性解釋之可能，恐發生共同正犯與共犯適用上之疑義；依民法「股份」以交付為生效要件，公司法則進一步規定應背書並交付始生股票轉讓之效力，證券交易法雖未明文規定「取得股份」行為屬性，惟其授權命令將「取得股份」定性為債權行為，於成不同法體系間產生法律行為定性扞格。進行強制公開收購制度「比例原則」審查時，考量確保義務履行機制最嚴重係剝奪受規範者人身自由，採嚴格標準審查適當性原則，母法及授權子法立法目的保護法益未盡相合，並無法賦予國家發動刑事制裁之正當性。基於私法自治原理，財經市場管制應重「事前控制」，為確保目的達成，有多種可行措施情形下，現行立法模式卻依賴刑事制裁，除不符必要性原則，亦有違刑罰謙抑主義。此外，以自由刑作為維護特定人財產權之手段，所受損害及所得利益權衡顯失輕重，違反狹義比例原則。最後，本文提出建議，允宜修改強制公開收購義務構成要件、廢除現行違反強制公開收購義務課以自由刑規制。另基於使所有股東均有公平參與應賣之機會，賦予股東得請求違法收購人，按同一收購價格負全部收購義務，並設計損害賠償民事補償措施，以加強違法收購人履行全部收購義務。

Individual property rights are not unrestricted. Based on social welfare, the nation can restrict the exercise of people’s property rights as Social Obligation of Property Rights by law. Securities and Exchange Act requires that “proposes to acquire a certain percentage of ”, shall make the acquisition by means of a public tender offert (referred to Mandatory Offer), which is a national power state to intervene the private economic behavior.The people should abide by the legal norms. The Legislators have their freedom or legislative discretion when making laws, but at the same time should be maintain the obligation of consistency, forming the legislator self-binding legal principles. Reviewing Securities and Exchange Act Article 43-1, Paragraph 3 and Regulations from a system justice perspective, the legislator chooses criminal sanctions as guarantee of performance the Mandatory Offer is within the legal scope of legislative discretion and It is hardly to say that there is no reasonable association between fulfillment approach and the purpose of SEC '' promote the national economic development and the protection of investors ''.In the constitutional elements of Mandatory Offer obligation “jointly with another person(s) proposes to acquire a certain percentage of ” which should be understood by the general subject. Thist way the constitutional elements of Mandatory Offer and the effect should be clear, but the elements ''certain proportion'' and ''certain conditions'' of Article 43-1, Paragraph 4 on the content, purpose, and scope of the are unclear and violate the the principle of the explicit delegation requirements.In addition, observe harmony of the Mandatory Offer constitutional elements from different legal systems. The element '' jointly with '' may have multiple interpretations in case may produce doubts about the application of joint principal offenders and solicitor; ''shares'' are movable assets of civil law and delivery is an elements of effectiveness, in further the Company Act requires endorsement and deliver in transfer of shares. The Securities Exchange Act does not explicitly defined that ''acquiring shares'' is a debt act, however its Regulations deose, resulting in ''acquisition of shares'' inconsistent between different legal systems.When review the Mandatory Offer system based on the principle of proportionality, base on the consideration of deprives the regulated members of their personal freedom and the purpose is different in Securities and Exchange Act and Regulations and it cannot give justifiability of criminal sanctions.Based on the principle of private law autonomy, financial market control should focus on ''ex-ante control''. In order to ensure that the purpose is achieved, in the case of a variety of feasible measures, the current legislative model relies on criminal sanctions. In addition to not conforming to the principle of necessity, it also violates criminal humility.In addition, the use of free punishment as a means of safeguarding a particular property rights, out of balance between the damage suffered and the benefits gained, violating the narrow principle of proportionality.Finally, this article proposes to modify the constituent elements of Mandatory Offer. On the basis that all shareholders have an opportunity to participate fairly in the sale, shareholders are allowed to request the illegal purchaser to bear all purchase obligations at the same purchase price, and design civil compensation measures for damages to strengthen the illegal purchaser from fulfilling all purchase obligations.