| 摘要: | 內線交易在我國證券交易市場係屬不法行為，雖然我國為此曾在1988年修法增訂相關條文，且因應國際財經情勢進行後續的修法，然而並沒有遏止該類事件的發生，反而屢屢發生於不同上市公司中。發生內線交易的原因繁多，但最主要優先探討的應是犯罪行為主體身分的確認。
我國有關內線交易行為主體的認定，係為證券交易法第一百五十七條之一第一項項下各款當中，然除了第一款、第二款、第四款、以及第五款之人較無爭議外，第三款所規範之人所涉及的範圍極為廣泛。雖然有相關的函釋、專家學者看法、以及實務見解可供參酌，但對於公司所聘僱之專、兼任技術職務研究人員身分並無特別說明，在罪刑法定和比例原則，以及憲法基本人權權益保障之下，是否應予進一步規範，並且參考國外行之有年的行政制裁方式納入內線交易違法行為之現行罰則當中，是值得探討的。
目前已知的日本，在內線交易的罰則中，實施所謂課徵金制度；而在美國，則有Civil penalty制度，兩者皆由行政主管機關主動發動後續相關制裁作為。我國過去也有部分專家學者對此進行相關研究，因此本文認為除了行為主體身分在確認之外，對於涉入內線交易較輕微的對象，應可採取上述的行政制裁，非完全以刑事制裁，作為是類案件的審判基石，進而讓有關內線交易之判決結果更加妥適，以維護證券市場交易之公平性。
Insider trading is an illegal act in my country's securities trading market. Although my country amended the law in 1988 to add relevant provisions, and made subsequent amendments in response to the international financial situation, it did not stop the occurrence of such incidents. in different listed companies. There are many reasons for insider trading, but the main priority should be the confirmation of the identity of the subject of the criminal act.
The identification of the subject of insider trading in my country is one of the subparagraphs under Article 157-1 of the Securities and Exchange Law, except for the first, second, fourth, and fifth paragraphs. In addition to the undisputed person, the scope of the person regulated in the third paragraph is extremely broad. Although there are relevant correspondence, opinions of experts and scholars, and practical opinions for consideration, there is no special explanation for the identity of the full-time or part-time technical researchers hired by the company. The principle of legality and proportionality in crimes and punishments, and the protection of basic human rights and interests in the Constitution It is worth discussing whether it should be further regulated and included in the current penalties for insider trading violations with reference to the administrative sanctions that have been practiced in foreign countries for many years.
Currently known in Japan, the so-called levy system is implemented in the penalties for insider trading; while in the United States, there is a civil penalty system, both of which are initiated by the administrative authorities to initiate subsequent relevant sanctions. In the past, some experts and scholars in my country have also conducted relevant research on this. Therefore, this paper believes that in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the actor, the above-mentioned administrative sanctions should be applicable to those who are involved in relatively minor insider transactions, not entirely criminal sanctions. It is the cornerstone of the trial of such cases, so as to make the judgment results of insider trading more appropriate, so as to maintain the fairness of securities market transactions. |
