| 摘要註: |
我國之證券交易管理，向來著重在行政監督與刑事責任，以期能減少違法之證券交易行為、維持健全之證券市場，並期能保護投資大眾之權益，進而促進發展國民經濟。但對於某部分投資人因違反證券交易法規所導致其他投資人遭受之損害，如何透由民事賠償責任來填補損害，與行政、刑事責任相輔相成，共同達到穩定證券市場發展之目的，亦是極重要之課題。本篇論文以探討證券詐欺之民事賠償責任為重心，主要論及證券交易法有關證券詐欺、資訊不實、公開說明書虛偽隱匿等之規定；此等課題，不論在發行市場或是交易市場均會遭遇到，其中發行市場會涉及資訊揭露不實有證券交易法第20條、第20條之一、第32條，至於交易市場則是第20條、第20條之一。本文先從證券詐欺之基本原則進行研究，俾使瞭解防範證券詐欺發生之中心理念。再我國關於證券詐欺之民事賠償規範多是彷自美國、日本立法，因此，本文就美國、日本關於證券詐欺之民事賠償之立法背景及立法例之介紹與分析，以瞭解外國針對證券詐欺問題所做之規範民事求償之方式為何，有助瞭解我國立法之方式與目的，以及與美、日立法之異同。再分別就一般證券詐欺、資訊不實、公開說明書虛偽隱匿之證券詐欺等之構成要件及法律效果進行分析，並參閱外國立法、實務、學說及我國司法實務運作情形，深入作比較及探討，並提出我國現行有關證券詐欺民事賠償制度之缺失及改善方向。 The management of the securities exchange in Taiwan has been focusing on administrative management and criminal punishment so far. By doing this, it is expected that illegal trade and behaviors can be restrained, and a sound stock market can be established, so that the investor’s rights and interests will be protected and the civil economic will be developed ultimately. However, for some investors who cause others’ damages by engaging in exchanges against the Securities and Exchange Act, the most important issue is how to make up damages through civil compensate liability, and to leverage civil liability with executive and criminal liability in order to stabilize the development of the stock market. The study probed into securities fraud and civil compensate liability by focusing on the regulations related to securities fraud, information fraud, misstatement or concealment on prospectus; such issues, which can be raised both in the issuance market and the trading market, when arising in the issuance market, are subject to mis-reveal of information under Article 20, 20-1, 32 of the Securities and Exchange Act; when arising in the trading market, are subject to the provisions under Article 20 and 20-1. The study researched on the basic principles of securities fraud at first, thus the core ideology for preventing securities fraud can be understood. Moreover, many of the civil compensate regulations in Taiwan are identical with the United States of America and Japan. Nevertheless, an instruction and analysis on the context and laws of the civil compensate liability for securities fraud in the States and Japan were also included for helping us to identify the methods and purposes for Taiwan’s legislation, and the similarities and differences among Taiwan, the States and Japan. Separately, the components and law effects for general securities fraud, information fraud, and the misstatement or concealment on prospectus were also analyzed, and the legislations, practices, theories from other nations and the operation of Taiwan’s legal practices were reviewed as well, in order to proceed a comparison and discussion, so that the deficiencies of Taiwan’s current civil compensate system for securities fraud can be uncovered, and directions for improvement can be suggested. |