論美國證券詐欺之主觀意圖要件

CCUR > College of Law > Department of Law & Graduate Institute of Law > journal articles > Item 987654321/34052

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/34052

Title:	論美國證券詐欺之主觀意圖要件 On the Intent Requirement of U.S. Securities Fraud
Authors:	戴銘昇
Contributors:	法律系
Keywords:	1933年證券法 1934年證券交易法 Section 10(b) Rule 10b-5 1995年私人證券訴訟改革法 1998年證券訴訟統一標準法證券詐欺故意嚴重過失重大過失情況證據雙面標準說動機及機會標準強而有力的推論著名的註12 Securities Act of 1933 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section 10(b) Rule 10b-5 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 PSLRA Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 securities fr
Date:	2007-10
Issue Date:	2016-09-07 11:26:46 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	美國為規範證券的發行及交易市場，分別制定了1933 年證券法及1934 年證券交易法。其中1934年證券交易法Section 10(b)及依據Section 10(b)授權制定的Rule 10b-5係防制證券不法行為最重要的證券詐欺條款。證券詐欺構成要件之一的主觀意圖要件本有爭議，為解決此一爭議，於Hochfelder案中，聯邦最高法院以判決宣示此一主觀意圖要件應限於故意，而不及於普通的過失；至於嚴重過失可否構成故意，本案則於「著名的註12」中表示這個問題讓各級法院自行判斷。當時，絕大多數的法院均承認嚴重過失可以構成故意，幾乎已確立其司法通說的地位。但是在1995 年私人證券訴訟改革法公布後，嚴重過失是否仍被承認及其認定標準為何？又生爭議。證券訴訟統一標準法為修補1995年私人證券訴訟改革法所引發生爭議，於1998年公布，但卻又使得此一爭議更形複雜。最後造成各級法院眾說紛呈的情況。 In order to regulate the issuing and trading market of the securities, the U.S. government promulgated Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The most important statutes in preventing the illegal act in securities market are Section 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, the so-called ”securities fraud provision.” The intent requirement of securities fraud was contentious. In order to resolve this issue, Federal Supreme Court in Hochfelder declared that this intent requirement is limited to scienter, not including negligence. As for the issue: Can recklessness also constitute the cienter? The famous note 12 said this issue was ”left open.” At that time, most courts recognized recklessness, it almost became a well-established judicial interpretation. But after the promulgation of Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, recklessness and its test became issues again. Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act was intended to repair this issue, subsequently published in 1998. But when this Act came into force, this issue was getting bitter. Finally, brought in ”circuit split.”In order to regulate the issuing and trading market of the securities, the U.S. government promulgated Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The most important statutes in preventing the illegal act in securities market are Section 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, the so-called ”securities fraud provision.” The intent requirement of securities fraud was contentious. In order to resolve this issue, Federal Supreme Court in Hochfelder declared that this intent requirement is limited to scienter, not including negligence. As for the issue: Can recklessness also constitute the scienter? The famous note 12 said this issue was ”left open.” At that time, most courts recognized recklessness, it almost became a well-established judicial interpretation. But after the promulgation of Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, recklessness and its test became issues again. Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act was intended to repair this issue, subsequently published in 1998. But when this Act came into force, this issue was getting bitter. Finally, brought in ”circuit split.”
Relation:	東吳法律學報； 19卷2期 (2007 / 10 / 01) ， P141 - 174
Appears in Collections:	[Department of Law & Graduate Institute of Law ] journal articles

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	332	View/Open

View Licence

Loading...