政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/98007
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113318/144297 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51029191      線上人數 : 920
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/98007


    題名: 內線交易之犯罪所得概念
    其他題名: The Concept of Illicit Proceeds from Insider Trading
    作者: 薛智仁
    Hsueh, Chih-Jen
    關鍵詞: 內線交易;資訊機會平等;犯罪所得;特殊獲利或避損機會;連帶沒收主義;共同正犯;追徵;台開案
    Insider Trading;Equality of Information;Illicit Proceeds;Special Opportunity to Gain Profits or Avert Loss;Joint and Several Liability Principle;Co-defendant + Confiscation;Taiwan Land Development Corporation Case
    日期: 2012-10
    上傳時間: 2016-06-17 16:08:13 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 在二○○六年爆發台開案之後，內線交易之共同正犯之間應如何計算犯罪所得，涉及證券交易法第一七一條之適用問題，在實務及學說上極具爭議。對此爭議，本文先從沒收犯罪所得之任務在於修正不法財產之移動，主張應以系爭構成要件之規範目的作為犯罪所得之認定標準。依此，由於內線交易之不法核心在於破壞投資人之資訊機會平等，故內線交易之犯罪所得係「特殊之獲利或避損機會」，而不是買入之股票或賣出股票所得之價金。其次，本文基於沒收犯罪所得之修正不法財產移轉的任務，主張不應採行實務之連帶沒收主義，僅能以各共同正犯成員之實際犯罪所得，作為沒收追徵範圍及加重刑罰之適用標準。
    The Taiwan Land Development Corporation insider trading case has generated controversy as to how to calculate illicit proceeds between co-defendants that involves the application of Article 171 of the Securities Exchange Act in practice and for academic purposes. This study looks into this controversy by first identifying that the goal for confiscating illicit proceeds is to adjust the transfer of illicit property, and thus arguing that the purpose of the elements of the crime in Article 171 should be the standard for concluding illicit proceeds. It follows that, as the main reason for criminalizing insider trading is that such conduct impairs the equality of information and opportunity for investors, the illicit proceeds from insider trading should be a special opportunity to gain profits or avert losses instead of the price for buying or selling stocks. Moreover, this study contends that the principle of joint and several liability should not apply since the goal for confiscating illicit proceeds is to adjust the transfer of illicit property. Therefore, this study further argues that the scope of confiscation and the criteria for aggravated penalty should be based on the actual illicit proceeds of a co-defendant.
    關聯: 法學評論, 129,245-299頁
    Chengchi law review
    資料類型: article
    顯示於類別:[政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    129-4.pdf1091KbAdobe PDF2535檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋