| 關 鍵 詞： |
1934 年證券交易法 Section 10（b）；規則10b-5；證券詐欺；有關任何證券的買或賣；詐欺計畫；商業活動；受託人義務；隱匿；虛偽陳述；私取理論 |
| 中文摘要： |
1. 無論是證管會或聯邦最高法院均未曾主張，「對於特定證券價值的虛偽陳述」係適用本法的必要要件。
2. 被告做了一系列的交易行為以便將被害人的證券變現、並據為已有。證券的出賣行為與被告的詐欺行為並非各別獨立的行為。這並不是於一個合法的交易行為結束後，證券經紀人臨時起意決定並偷取價款的案件。在本案，被告就是以證券的出售來遂行其詐欺行為。
3. 當被告賣出證券時，其之後侵占出售證券所得的價款此一事實，只是可以做為違反 Section 10（b）的一個「有說服力的證據」而已，侵占行為本身並不是本條項的構成要件……出售證券之行為做成時，就足以使詐欺計畫之行為同時成立。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Section 10（b） of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934；Rule 10b-5；securities fraud；in connection with the purchase or sale of any security；fraudulent scheme；course of business；fiduciary duty；omission；misrepresentation；misappropriation theory |
| 英文摘要： |
（[N]either the SEC nor this Court has ever held that there must be a misrepresentation
about the value of a particular security in order to run afoul of the Act.）
（[R]espondent made a series of transactions that enabled him to convert the proceeds of the sales of the Woods’ securities to his own use. The securities sales and respondent's fraudulent practices were not independent events. This is not a case in which, after a lawful transaction had been consummated, a broker decided to steal the proceeds and did so. Nor is it a case in which a thief simply invested the proceeds of a routine conversion in the stock market. Rather, respondent’s fraud coincided with the sales themselves.）
（The fact that respondent misappropriated the proceeds of the sales provides persuasive evidence that he had violated § 10（b） when he made the sales, but misappropriation is not an essential element of the offense… It is enough that the scheme to defraud and the sale of securities coincide.）
|
| 目 次： |
判決要旨
關鍵詞
事實
判決
理由
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|