| 摘要: | 我國對於內線交易主體採列舉方式，規範在證劵交易法157條之1第1項第1到5款中。在各款的解釋上，往往涉及立法目的和罪刑法定主義相互間拉扯，使得內線交易的規定有模糊的地帶，而產生適用上的疑義。舉例而言，在公司法修正後，實質董事也如同董事一樣，負相同民事、刑事和行政責任。如此，解釋上實質董事似乎也能納入同法第1項第1款當中。同時，關於透過不法手段取得內部消息並進行交易，是否有內線交易的適用?在欠缺明文規範下，實務和學者的見解又是如何?另外，在探討公務員時，雖然我國實務和有學說肯認可成為內線交易主體，但在適用第3款基於職業關係獲悉消息和第5款消息受領人時，所面臨的問題，都是本文所想要討論的。就此，本文擬透過介紹美國法上詐欺理論，並輔以美國實務相關見解發展，希冀能在我國內線交易主體在解釋或適用上，提供些許的幫助。
最後，在同條第7項準用同法22條之2第3項，其應該如何適用，以及相關的法律效果為何?透過實務和不同見解的介紹，讓這個問題更加可以凸顯出來。此外，我國法對配偶、未成年子女以及為他人持股的規範，是否妥適值得深入探討。本文打算介紹美國法上實質受益人，其是以董事、監察以及經理人和股東作區分。在前者的部分，是以有無直接或間接受有利益為判斷；在股東的部分是以有無直接或間接控制投票權或投票決策權作判斷。
The regulation of sujects of inside trading in our country lists on subparagraph 1 to subparagraph 5. When it comes to the scorpe of subjects of inside trading, it involes the purpose of the regulation and the principle of nulla poena sine lege, both of which makes the regulation of inside trading so vague that it is hard to explain. For examlpe, after new regulation legilating in Company Law, the de facto director nd shadow director also have duty as director in companies.Therefore, there seems that de facto director and shadow director both an be the sujects of subparagraph 1.Besides, when someone buy and sell stocks by insider information getting via illegality, it may causes doubt that whether it is inside trading? Lacking of regulation, point of views of between courts and scholars are worthwhile to discuss. Although courts and some of scholars agree that public servants can be the subjects of inside trading, but the problems confronting as we ues subparagraph 3 and subparagraph 5 to sue for inside trading are the important things I try to talk about. I hope to introduce fraud theories and change in point of views by foreign cours so that it can help whenever we explain or apply the regulation of inside trading.
Finally, by introduecing the different point of view on how paragraph 7 applies article 22-2 with necessary modifications and what legal effect it is between courts and scholars, I try to emphasize the problems. Besides, the issue whether the regulation about spouses, minor childs, and someone who owns stocks for others'benefit is appropriate or not is so important that we can't ignore. In this issue, I intend to talk about the concept of beneficial owner, which can be seperated into two parts: One contains directors, supervisors, managers, which depend they have own benefit diretly or indirectly to identfy whether they are beneficial owner or not; the other is shareholders, which depend they have control vote and decision diretly or indirectly to identify whether they are beneficial owner or not. |
