| 關 鍵 詞： |
證券詐欺；特殊侵權行為；主要行為人；次要行為人；幫助與造意者 |
| 中文摘要： |
證券交易法第 20 條第 1 項規定：「有價證券之募集、發行、私募或買賣，不得有虛偽、詐欺或其他足致他人誤信之行為。」同條第 3 項規定：「違反第 1 項規定者，對於該有價證券之善意取得人或出賣人因而所受之損害，應負賠償之責。」上述第 20 條之責任主體為何，在我國學術界與實務界素有爭議。經由我國立法沿革的檢視並比較美國 1934 年證券交易法下之 Rule 10b-5 的規定與其近年的發展，本文認為傳統上關於第 20 條責任主體的論辯方向顯有疑義，並主張在其他構成要件合致的情形下，任何人均可能須依該條應負損害賠償之責。惟諸此行為人應賠償之損害應依其責任比例負責，而非負連帶賠償責任。在分析第 20 條與民法侵權行為規範的關係後，本文並主張 20 條的存在，應限縮民法侵權行為規定適用於證券詐欺案例的空間，始係現行法制下的較佳推論。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
securities fraud；special torts；primary actor；secondary actor；aider and abettor |
| 英文摘要： |
Paragraph 1 of Article 20 in Securities Exchange Act provides that, during the public offering, issuing, private placement, or trading of securities, there shall be no misrepresentations, frauds, or any other acts which are sufficient to mislead other persons. And Paragraph 3 of this Article further stipulates that anyone who violates the provisions of paragraph 1 shall be held liable for damages sustained by bona fide purchasers or sellers of the said securities. How to identify the “responsible actor” of civil remedies for Article 20 violation is a highly contentious question among practitioners and scholars. Through reviewing the legislative history of Article 20 and juxtaposing Rule 10b-5 and recent development under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this paper suggests that the traditional debate on the “responsible actor” concept is not well-guided, and anyone who was involved in the securities fraud scheme is likely to be held liable for the damages if other elements are met. And each should be held responsible in proportionate to his own participation in the fraud, but not held liable jointly and severally for all the damage caused. Based on the analysis of the relationship between Article 20 and the tort regulation in Civil Law, that the existence of Article 20 should limit the role the tort rules of the Civil Law can play in securities fraud cases, this paper further argues, is a more reasonable deduction under Taiwan’s current regime.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、實務案例中的責任主體認定觀察
一、立大農畜案
二、正義食品案
三、國產汽車案
四、博達案
五、紐新案
參、立法史並不支持限縮解釋
肆、證交法與民法的適用觀察與相互影響
一、證券詐欺責任讓民法侵權行為適用過於保守？
二、民法規定的存在讓證交法限縮解釋有恃無恐？
伍、證交法第 20 條之 1 增訂的影響
一、證交法第 20 條第 2 項及第 20 條之 1 的立法
二、法理的明文化：比例責任而非責任主體
陸、美國法的近年發展與參考價值
一、美國最高法院 Central Bank 案、Stoneridge 案及 Janus 案三部曲
二、比較法上的參考價值：責任主體範圍與責任限縮
柒、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|