內線交易罪主體之研究

A Study on the Subjects of Insider Trading Crime

內線交易行為是在資訊尚未正式公開前，少數具特定關係之人因該資訊而獲利，建立在少數人與多數人資訊不平等的基礎上，可能造成少數人以獲取此等資訊為目的而進行短線操作，不僅損害公司股東之權益，也違反股市應透明、公開之原則，造成市場的健全程度不足，降低投資人對股市的信任程度。基於以上理由，儘管反對禁止內線交易之聲音始終存在，本文認為內線交易應予禁止。關於內線交易之禁止，法學理論上有市場論及關係論二大派別。隨著社會發展，禁止內線交易的理論基礎可能發生變化，並非一成不變，故禁止內線交易之法規範必須與時俱進。本文將擇要說明禁止內線交易的理論要旨及其發展脈絡，並以此為出發點，檢視我國相關法律規定之合理性。
關於內線交易，法律上有諸多爭議。如消息重大性及明確性、消息公開時點、犯罪所得之計算等，在學術及實務上備受重視，也是司法審判中攻防之重點所在。相對而言，關於內線交易之行為人，近年來在我國實務上較不受到重視。實則，內線交易之行為人的法律上定義即其範圍，與前述禁止內線交易的理論基礎有著千絲萬縷的關係，法規範所不容許之內線交易主體為何，會因採用市場論及關係論中之何者，而有極大差異。採用市場論或關係論會對內線交易之行為人即主體的相關規定產生重大影響。法定的內線交易主體，反映出立法者對上開二種理論所做的選擇。
本文所探討之內線交易主體問題，僅涉及刑事法與證券交易法交錯適用之部分。從犯罪防制之角度出發，內線交易行為固然必須禁止，但應以禁止內線交易之法規範本身合理為前提。準此，對於內線交易行為之成立要件（因本文探討犯罪行為，故於本文中稱為構成要件）必須於法律中有明確而完善的規定，若法規與立法意旨不能呼應或有漏洞，不能確實解決立法所欲解決之問題，甚至於邏輯上不能自恰，便有修法之餘地。本文第二章中將簡述以上理論之發展情形，再接續於第三章中將美國法（包含前述二派理論）、歐盟法及英國法涉及內線交易主體部分和我國法橫向比較，說明我國法有修正之必要。
我國法中對於內線交易罪之構成要件有明文規範，即證券交易法第157條之1。該條文針對內線交易，目前定有內部人、準內部人、消息受領人等主體類型。縱向觀察，我國制定內線交易之規範以來，學術及實務上對我國採市場論或關係論之見解分歧。而我國證券交易法第157條之1制訂之初，或參酌當時之美國法而採取市場論，但情勢變遷，如今當初所參酌之美國法已演變為採關係論。我國仍採取市場論之觀點解釋繼受於美國之法制，遂生爭議。具體而言，現行證券交易法第157條之1第1項第1、2、3、5款所規定之內部人、準內部人及消息受領人等三種主體，尤其是消息受領人，其構成要件涉及二派理論的抉擇，有部分論者主張現行法採市場論，然本文見解認為完全的市場論不合邏輯且不切實際，更有侵害人權之虞，兼採關係論及市場論更為合理。因此證券交易法第157條之1第1項第1、2、3、5款規定中應有關係論之要素存在，現行法與此扞格之處，應參考他國法制檢討、修正。本文第三章關於內線交易主體之內容為此論文之核心部分，將依法條體系，詳細闡述以上觀點。
另外，傳統上之關係論所認定之「關係」乃指行為人與公司、公司內部人之關係，但從比較法之角度，政府之雇員（公務員）及具有民意基礎之國會議員（民意代表）是否應受內線交易禁止規範之拘束？現行法之準內部人是否足以涵蓋此二類人，容有爭議。本文援引他國、我國學者見解及相關法律規定說明此問題，並且採肯定說。實務上，我國雖曾發生公務員涉及內線交易之重大案例，但司法判決並未論以內線交易罪，本文第四章之案例評析將加以說明。另外，以新興不法手段獲取內線消息（例如侵入企業電腦或網路硬碟擅自取得機密資訊），我國現行內線交易法制中並無禁止之規定，參酌美國法之相關理論及歐盟法規範，本文主張應於證券交易法第157條之1增訂此主體。
刑法上之複數行為人，即共同正犯、教唆犯、幫助犯之問題，於內線交易時如何適用？與內線交易之法理有無衝突？本文第三章中有部分內容在討論此一問題。又本文將內線交易主體於行為時之主觀心態納入研究範圍，即刑法上故意及不法意圖之問題。知悉與利用之爭，有許多研究論述。本文以一定篇幅比較二說之利弊，並說明為何支持推定利用說，並說明採此說應具備之配套措施。 最後，我國實務上曾發生數起重大內線交易案件，廣受社會矚目。上開案件之刑事部分歷經十餘年的司法審判，對於我國證券交易法第157條之1之內線交易罪主體規定於實務上如何被解釋及適用，應有高度的參考價值。本文整理各該案件自第一審起至本文截稿前最後一次判決之判決要旨，包括犯罪事實及對內線交易罪主體部分之法律評價，以供參考。於結論中，筆者綜合本文之所有觀點，提出對於證券交易法第157條之1現行法之修正芻議，並列表說明。

Insider trading undermines the interests of companies and shareholders, shakes investors’ confidence in the stock market, impedes the development of market integrity, and sabotages the foundation of market operation. Consequently, advanced countries worldwide have reached a consensus on prohibiting insider trading. Insider trading refers to stock trading behavior practiced on the basis of information asymmetry and inequality. A person who engages in insider trading may be an insider of a company that issues marketable securities or someone who acquires insider information through tipping from an insider or other non-insiders. In some cases, if an individual engages in a transaction based on confidential internal information of a company that has not yet been disclosed and would potentially affect the market value of securities obtained through information tipped off via multiple relays, such a transaction is also identified as a form of insider trading. In the criminal code, the actors involved in the aforementioned forms of insider trading are perceived as the subjects of insider trading violations. In the present study, research around this theme is conducted.
Fundamental theories for insider trading prohibition include the equal access theory (also known as the market integrity theory or the market theory for short), the fiduciary duty theory, the misappropriation theory, and the tipper–tippee theory (the latter three being relation-based theories). Currently, the United States adopts relation-based theories. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 defines insider trading as a fraudulent act and establishes essential elements for insider trading on the basis of the aforementioned theories as supplementary regulations. These theories shall be fallowed by all states which enforce laws that regulate insider trading, Taiwan is no exception. In addition, the executive orders promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and appropriate applications of the aforementioned theories in judicial adjudications also important materials worth referencing. By contrast, some European countries categorize insider trading regulations as statutory laws and incline toward the market theory in relation to legislative purposes without being subject to the restriction of deeming insider trading as fraud, which is akin to the situation in Taiwan. Accordingly, in addition to legislation in the United States, Taiwan can also draw on insider trading regulations enacted by the European Union and other European countries as critical references in interpreting domestic legislation. Thus, this study elaborates on several key aspects of relevant legal institutions implemented by the European Union and the United Kingdom.
Regarding the constituent elements of insider trading violations stipulated in Paragraph 1, Article 157-1 of the Securities Exchange Act, the definition of the subjects of insider trading lacks specificity and adequate coverage, which has, in turn, caused numerous controversies in statutory interpretation. The comparative jurisprudence-based interpretation approach is admittedly a crucial method for legal interpretation. However, as a country adopting statutory laws, Taiwan cannot rely merely on theories and judicial precedents as supplements to positive laws; express statutory provisions are advisably required. Therefore, this study maintains that legislative amendments should be introduced as promptly as possible with reference to the current legislation adopted by the United States and the European Union to make provisions on more specific and comprehensive regulations governing the subjects of insider trading, thereby preventing legal loopholes. Further, regarding the subjective constituent elements of the subjects of insider trading, controversies have surrounded two competing theories, namely, the theories of knowing and of use — both crucial and relevant topics of research interest. Although the former comprises the majority of legal theory in present-day practice, this study argues that the adoption of the constructive use theory achieves a higher level of appropriateness. Thus, the study suggests that the constructive theory should be adopted and that current legislation be amended to include exemption clauses as supporting regulations.