證券交易法上內線交易獲悉與利用之爭論

The Knowing Possession versus Use Debate on Insider Trading Prohibition under Securities Exchange Law

系所名稱：法律學系 學位別：碩士 畢業學年：98年 指導教授：武永生、詹庭禎 本篇論文乃在探討證券交易法內線交易責任構成「獲悉」與「利用」之爭議，此爭議係著眼於：原告是否需要證明「重大未公開消息」與「被告所為交易」二者間具備一定關聯性？支持「獲悉」標準之論者認為，原告毋庸證明被告所為交易係導因於其獲悉持有之消息，僅證明被告在「獲悉持有」重大未公開消息時有「買賣」有價證券之事實即足。然而，採取「利用」標準之論者則認為，原告至少須證明涉嫌內線交易者有「利用」該消息以規劃或實現其交易之情事。就美國法而論，此一爭議最早係源自於美國聯邦高等法院之不同巡迴法院間，關於內線交易責任主觀「犯意」要件之歧異判決；為解決此一爭議，美國證管會(SEC)遂於2000年時頒布新規定，並採取不同以往之「察知」標準；然而該標準是否確能解決爭議，美國法院與論者仍有質疑。如就我國法而論，證券交易法第157條之1第1項規定明示「獲悉」之用語，惟該條文於1988年增定時之立法理由卻揭示「利用消息」之概念；前此情形，恰巧顯現出我國自是時起即產生「獲悉」與「利用」之爭論。本文擬以下述之章節探討我國法爭論，並提出具體建議：第一章、緒論：本章討論本論文之研究動機、研究目的、研究方法與論文架構等項。第二章、內線交易之歸責理論：本章首先就美國法之歸責基礎予以討論，而後始探討我國法之部份。最後，本文建議採取「資訊財產權理論」之觀點，並認為禁止內線交易之規定，乃賦予公司內部資訊如同「智慧財產權」般之保障，作為激勵創造新資訊之誘因；且該等財產權益應歸屬於投入成本而創造資訊者，在概念上並「非」歸屬於社會之公共財。第三章、美國法上「知悉持有」(knowingpossession)與「利用」(use)之爭論：本章將介紹2000年以前之美國法爭議。具體言之，此一爭議係建構在美國聯邦高等法院三個判決之上，亦即第二巡迴法院於1993年UnitedStatesv.Teicher案判決採取「知悉持有」標準；然而，1998年第十一巡迴法院SECv.Adler案與第九巡迴法院UnitedStatesv.Smith案，則採取「利用」標準。第四章、美國法爭論之晚近發展：本章首先說明，即便面臨無權限就內線交易為定義性規範之質疑，惟美國證管會為解決爭議仍頒布Rule10b5-1規定，採取不同以往之「察知」標準，且增設數個免責抗辯事由；又美國證管會認為，前開方式較能符合證券交易法保護投資大眾與證券市場之目的。然而前開標準是否確能解決爭議？由大多數美國法院與論者均未支持之情形而論，吾人可謂前開規定未能解決爭議，且此一爭議於現刻仍繼續存在於美國法之中。第五章、我國「獲悉」與「利用」之爭論：本章首先說明我國證券交易法第157條之1第1項規定明示「獲悉」用語，惟該條文於1988年增定時之立法理由卻揭示「利用消息」之概念；前此情形，恰巧顯現出我國自是時起已產生「獲悉」與「利用」之爭論。其次，本文擬說明我國學界先進與司法實務判決之相關見解，並就數個面刻探討我國法之爭議，包含內線交易歸責理論、憲法比例原則、構成要件明確性原則與主觀構成要件及其證明等面刻。最終，本文主張我國內線交易責任之構成，必以具備下列兩要件為前提：（1）買賣與重大消息二者間，應具備一定關聯性；（2）無論有無具備「意圖」，但以行為人具備違犯內線交易規定之「故意」為必要。第六章、結論：綜合前述各個章節之內容，本文提出兩個可行之具體建議方案，作為我國法爭議之可能解決途徑。

This thesis is to explore the "Knowing Possession" versus "Use" debateon insider trading prohibition under Securities Exchange Law, focusing on:does the plaintiff need to demonstrate the causal connection between thematerial nonpublic information and the defendants' trading? Commentatorssupporting "Knowing Possession" standard claim that the plaintiff need notprove that the defendants purchased or sold securities because of thematerial nonpublic information that they knowingly possessed. It issufficient if the plaintiff proves that the defendants purchased or soldsecurities while knowingly in possession of the material nonpublicinformation. However, Commentators supporting "Use" standard deem thatthe plaintiff must, at a minimum, prove that the suspect used the informationin formulating or consummating his trade. In United State, this debateoriginated from a circuit split among federal courts as to insider trading’s"Scienter" requirement. In order to settle the dispute, SEC promulgated Rule10b5-1 in 2000, imposing liability when a person is "aware" of the materialnonpublic information when they participate in a securities trade.Nevertheless, U. S. courts and commentators still doubt whether "aware"standard really resolve the problem. In Taiwan, article 157-1, Paragraph 1 ofthe Securities and Exchange Law imposes liability when a person is learningabout the material nonpublic information when they trade. Even so, the reasons of amendment to that article in 1988 revealed that insider trading issomeone "using" the material nonpublic information to trade. The splitopinions showed that there is "Knowing Possession" versus "Use" debate inTaiwan since 1988.The author discusses the debate in Taiwan, and advocates possiblesolutions to the dilemma in this thesis. The scheme of this thesis comprisessix chapters as follows:Chapter I illustrates the motives, methods and realm of this thesis.Chapter II explores the theoretical underpinnings of insider tradingregulation. First of all, the author illustrates several theories in U.S., andthen explores the theoretical underpinnings of insider trading regulation inTaiwan. In the end, the author stands for the Information Property Theory,and advocates that the insider trading prohibition is more easily justified as ameans of protecting property rights in information than as a way ofprotecting investors. And that property right is assigned to corporationpaying to produce information. The rationale for assigning the property rightto the firm is precisely the same as the rationale for prohibiting patentinfringement or theft of trade secrets: protecting the economic incentive toproduce socially valuable information.Chapter III illustrates the "Knowing Possession" versus "Use" debateon insider trading prohibition in U.S. before 2000. The federal judicialdecisions in three recent cases frame the debate. The Second Circuit inUnited States v. Teicher stated in dicta that possession of material nonpublicinformation was the correct standard for courts to use in cases of insidertrading. In SEC v. Adler and United States v. Smith, the Eleventh and NinthCircuits, respectively, found that actual use of nonpublic information wasnecessary to find that an insider trading violation occurred.Chapter IV explores the recent situation of the debate in U.S. The SECpromulgated Rule 10b5-1 in 2000 to resolve the circuit split between thepossession or use standards in cases of insider trading. Although debate existed over whether or not the SEC should offer a formal definition, theSEC determined that the time had come to provide a definition andcontended that "aware" standard including several affirmative defenses bestsatisfy the goals of insider trading laws to protect investors and the market.However, most U.S. courts and some commentators don’t agree with SECon "aware" standard, and still support "Knowing Possession" or "Use"standard. In sum, this debate exists in U.S. until now.Chapter V illustrates the "Knowing Possession" versus "Use" debate oninsider trading prohibition in Taiwan. As we know, article 157-1, Paragraph1 of the Securities and Exchange Law imposes liability when a person islearning about the material nonpublic information when they trade. However,the reasons of amendment to that article in 1988 revealed that insider tradingis someone "using" the material nonpublic information to trade. The splitopinions showed that there is "Knowing Possession" versus "Use" debate inTaiwan. After carefully studying major opinions made by courts andcommentators, the author uses the former analysis of Chapter II ~ IV todiscuss the debate in several aspects, including the theoretical underpinningsof insider trading regulation, Principles of Proportionality, Principles of theClearness, and Subjective Constitutive Requirement and its proof. Finally,this thesis argues, for a violation of insider trading regulation, the plaintiffmust, at a minimum, prove that: (1) there is a causal connection between thematerial nonpublic information and the defendants' trading; (2) no matterhaving any intention or not, the defendants should willfully violate insidertrading regulation.Chapter VI reviews all discussions in this thesis. The author advocates two possible solutions to the dilemma.