2015年7月1日修訂證券交易法第155條第1項第4款，於本款最後增定「而有影響市場價格或市場秩序之虞」之文字，從而本款成爲「具體危險犯」之規範。由法理而言，2015年7月新修正之證券交易法第155條第1 項第4款，平衡了行爲人投資自由及一般投資人不應受詐害權益保護，似可肯定。
In addition to protect investors from violation of property, the equity and safety of security market are important foundations of nationwide and global financial stability. Therefore, every country has legislated against illegal “manipulation”.
In Taiwan, Securities and Exchange Act, Article 155, Paragraph 1, Sub-paragraph 4 indicates that “series transaction” is prohibited. Article 171 indicates the punishment for a person who has committed the offenses.
“Pump and Dump” is the most common type of manipulation in Taiwan. There are many studies in view of practice and doctrine. The observation on the practice of court shows that most of previous judgments consist of some certain restrictions. The definition of the determination of the offenses, and whether the investor’s conducts are considered as the criteria which are used to judge the offense.
To constitute a violation of Article 155, Paragraph 1, Sub-paragraph 4 of the Securities and Exchange Act, must an actor effect a series of transactions for the intent of inducing the purchase or sale of a security by others ? Both the interpretations of legal scholars and court’s rulings spit on this issue. Since applying different intent element will influence court’s finding of the offense, the dispute of interpreting the intent element of market manipulation needs to be resolved. This thesis argues that the intent of inducing the purchase or sale of a security by others should become the subjective element of manipulation by affecting a series of transactions. Because adding the inducement element is the key to distinguish illegal transaction from legal transaction under free market theory. Secondly, the courts’ verdicts have held that the defendant was not guilty if the trading was for investment purpose. But what is the boundary between investment purpose and the intent to manipulate? What is the limitation of the investment purpose defense? Is the trader claiming investment purpose prohibited from selling quickly after buying a large number of shares? Since the standards that the courts used to distinguish investment purpose from the intent to manipulate is not clear. This thesis argues that the market traders need clear standards to follow before they trade.
