查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- Beyond Uncertainty: Lower Courts' Defiance in Insider Trading Cases in Taiwan
- 內線交易犯罪之研究
- 專門職業人員與內線交易責任
- 美國、日本及我國證券交易法對公開發行公司內部人持股管理等規定之比較
- 美國、日本及我國證券交易法對公開發行公司內部人持股管理等規定之比較
- 內線交易查核之相關問題研討
- 關係企業交叉持股之弊端研討
- 證券交易法第155條及第157條之1有關市場操縱及內線交易規範之修正重點
- 內線交易構成要件之研究:以「證券交易法第157條之1第五項及第六項重大消息範圍及其公開方式管理辦法」第5條規定為中心
- 論內線交易犯罪所得金額的計算
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | Beyond Uncertainty: Lower Courts' Defiance in Insider Trading Cases in Taiwan=超越法律解釋的不確定性:臺灣內線交易案件中下級審法院的堅持 |
---|---|
作者 | 邵慶平; | 書刊名 | National Taiwan University Law Review |
卷期 | 10:2 2015.09[民104.09] |
頁次 | 頁177-206 |
分類號 | 563.51 |
關鍵詞 | 證券交易法; 內線交易; 司法階層; 專業法官; 代理理論; Securities and exchange act; Insider trading; Judicial hierarchy; Specialist judge; Principal-agent theory; |
語文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 臺灣對於內線交易的明文規範始於一九八八年,但對於內線交易 的追訴直到一九九○年代末期才逐漸增加。近年之內線交易案件雖 多,定罪率則相當低。因此,內線交易規範常被批評是存在著過高的 不確定性。 相對於傳統上對於內線交易規範不確定性的探討,本文則嘗試從 下級審法院的堅持,提供另一種觀點。本文認為,在下級審法院逐漸 設立專業法庭、指定專業法官的情形下,司法階層下法律見解上行下 效的體制受到極大的挑戰。要緩解此一問題,必須強化最高法院與下 級審法院的溝通,而學術研究的重視與引用,應在溝通過程中扮演重 要的角色。 |
英文摘要 | Taiwan promulgated its insider trading law in 1988. Prosecutions against insider traders were rare until the late 1990s. As enforcement actions increase, high-profile cases often shock the public and unsettle the business community about how to implement trading without incurring any legal risks. On the other hand, only a small number of prosecuted defendants are finally convicted. Judgments by the second-instance high courts are often reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court. That the conviction rate and the non-reversal rate are low means that prosecutors and judges from different levels of the judicial hierarchy are often unable to agree on the alleged violations and the interpretation of the law. Hence, legal uncertainty is unreasonably high. In this paper, conventional wisdom is challenged regarding the causes of difficulties enforcing insider trading laws in Taiwan, arguing that evaluating the defiance of the lower courts can elucidate these enforcement problems. It is suggested that lower courts’ obedience to precedents be partly premised on the condition that higher courts are more skillful interpreters of the law and can offer superior solutions to legal questions. From this angle, hierarchical legitimacy has become an increasing challenge since specialized panels were established in lower courts, but not in the Supreme Court. This paper does not favor a specialist court system. Instead, it suggests that, to improve communication between the Supreme Court and the lower courts, academics can play a much more important role than they do now. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。