本文關(guān)鍵詞： 內(nèi)幕交易 因果關(guān)系 認(rèn)定規(guī)則 因果推定原則 市場欺詐理論　出處：《海南大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：本文總共分三大部分,引言、結(jié)論和正文。其中正文將分成四個章節(jié)分別討論內(nèi)幕交易侵權(quán)責(zé)任因果關(guān)系問題的研究。 第一章,評析學(xué)者對于內(nèi)幕交易侵權(quán)責(zé)任因果關(guān)系的不同觀點�？偨Y(jié)我國學(xué)者對內(nèi)幕交易侵權(quán)責(zé)任因果關(guān)系理論的分析,主要有三種不同的觀點,其中理論的來源主要是繼承和移植普通法系、大陸法系關(guān)于侵權(quán)責(zé)任因果關(guān)系的研究：1、事實因果關(guān)系說；2、法規(guī)目的說；3、相當(dāng)因果關(guān)系說。而不同的理論對于內(nèi)幕交易認(rèn)定的規(guī)則和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)都不一致。 第二章,討論域外內(nèi)幕交易侵權(quán)責(zé)任因果關(guān)系的認(rèn)定,本章主要討論三個國家分別是美國、日本和英國,通過了解這三個國家關(guān)于內(nèi)幕交易侵權(quán)責(zé)任因果關(guān)系立法和司法實踐內(nèi)容,分別整理出他們分析該因果關(guān)系適用的理論和立法規(guī)則。 第三章,本章首先對我國關(guān)于內(nèi)幕交易侵權(quán)責(zé)任的立法進行了較為完整的闡述,但由于我國立法者對侵權(quán)責(zé)任中因果關(guān)系并沒有制定相應(yīng)細(xì)則,所以本文則采用司法實踐的中法院在審判過程中對于認(rèn)定內(nèi)幕交易行為與損害后果之間的因果關(guān)系的規(guī)則,從兩種類型案例分析,首先是對于民事案例的分析,再次分析行政案件中對于內(nèi)幕交易因果關(guān)系的認(rèn)定規(guī)則。 第四章,是對于內(nèi)幕交易侵權(quán)責(zé)任因果關(guān)系認(rèn)定規(guī)則我國現(xiàn)存的問題和相關(guān)規(guī)則完善的建議,本章中建議主要分為兩個方面：1、我國在認(rèn)定內(nèi)幕交易侵權(quán)責(zé)任因果關(guān)系中問題；2、規(guī)則建議：根據(jù)比較分析和實證分析,提出內(nèi)幕交易侵權(quán)責(zé)任因果關(guān)系認(rèn)定規(guī)則的建議。 證券內(nèi)幕交易作為危害極大的違法行為,不僅直接違反了證券市場的“三公”原則,而且給廣大證券投資者造成了巨大的損害,更是喪失了投資者對證券市場的信心和期待。所以為了發(fā)展和繁榮證券市場多數(shù)國家都明令禁止內(nèi)幕交易。域外國家特別是美國一直都是禁止內(nèi)幕交易規(guī)則的范本,多數(shù)國家在制定禁止內(nèi)幕交易過程中都是學(xué)習(xí)借鑒美國的做法,禁止內(nèi)幕交易在美國采用的是行政、刑事的民事都追究內(nèi)幕交易人責(zé)任的方式。在我國對內(nèi)幕交易規(guī)制主要用行政責(zé)任與刑事責(zé)任追究,但民事責(zé)任的制定對禁止內(nèi)幕行為有著不可或缺的作用,所以本文的寫作目的就是希望能夠為內(nèi)幕交易民事責(zé)任的研究“添磚加瓦”。本文采用的方法主要有兩種比較分析法和實證分析法,旨在實務(wù)中解決理論問題。最后再對我國完善內(nèi)幕交易侵權(quán)行為因果關(guān)系給出自己的建議。
[Abstract]:This article is divided into three parts, the introduction, the conclusion and the text. The text will be divided into four chapters to discuss the cause and effect of insider trading tort liability.
The first chapter, comments on the different views of scholars for insider trading liability for tort causality. The analysis of the tort liability of insider trading causality theory scholars in our country, there are three different views, including the theory of inheritance and transplantation is the main source of common law on tort liability, the causal relationship between the continental law system: 1 in fact, causal relationship; 2, the law said; 3, causal relationship. But the different theories about the cognizance of insider dealing rules and standards are not consistent.
The second chapter, discuss the cognizance of extraterritorial infringement liability of insider trading causality, this chapter mainly discusses the three countries are the United States, Japan and Britain, through the understanding of the three countries on the tort liability of insider trading causality between the legislative and judicial practice, they are shown for the analysis of the causal relationship between the theory and legislative rules.
The third chapter, this chapter of our country about the tort liability of insider trading legislation for a more complete elaboration, but because of our legislators and not on the tort liability in relation to formulate the corresponding causal rules, so this paper uses the judicial practice of the court during the trial to define insider trading behavior between consequences and damage the rules of causation, from the analysis of two types of cases, the first is the analysis of the civil case, once again identified the causal relationship between insider trading rules for administrative cases.
The fourth chapter is the cognizance of the existing problems of China's rules and rules related suggestions for tort liability of insider trading causality, proposed in this chapter is mainly divided into two aspects: 1, China in the cognizance of insider trading causality in tort liability; 2 suggestions: according to the rules of comparative analysis and empirical analysis. The insider trading rules identified the tort causation.
Securities insider trading is extremely harmful violations, not only a direct violation of the securities market three principle, but also to investors caused great damage, is the loss of the investors in the securities market confidence and expectations. So in most countries the development and prosperity of the securities market have banned insider trading in foreign countries especially. The United States is always is a model for insider trading rules, most of the countries in the formulation of insider trading in the process is to learn from the practice of the United States, the prohibition of insider trading in the United States is the administrative, criminal civil liability for insider trading in all the way. In our country the insider trading regulation mainly by administrative responsibility and criminal responsibility, but the formulation of civil liability plays an indispensable role in prohibiting insider behavior, so the purpose of this article is to hope to be able to There are two ways of comparative analysis and empirical analysis for the study of civil liability of insider trading. The purpose of this paper is to solve theoretical problems in practice. Finally, we give some suggestions for improving the causality of insider trading tort in China.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：海南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 馮果;李安安;;內(nèi)幕交易的民事責(zé)任及其實現(xiàn)機制——寫在資本市場建立20周年之際[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2011年05期

2 齊文遠(yuǎn),金澤剛;內(nèi)幕交易的經(jīng)濟分析與法律規(guī)制[J];法商研究;2002年04期

3 葉金強;;論過錯程度對侵權(quán)構(gòu)成及效果之影響[J];法商研究;2009年03期

4 楊立新;梁清;;原因力的因果關(guān)系理論基礎(chǔ)及其具體應(yīng)用[J];法學(xué)家;2006年06期

5 顧肖榮;日本證券內(nèi)幕交易的民事責(zé)任[J];法學(xué);2002年01期

6 毛玲玲;;中美證券內(nèi)幕交易規(guī)制的比較與借鑒[J];法學(xué);2007年07期

7 趙曉菊;信息不對稱與金融風(fēng)險的控制管理[J];國際金融研究;1999年05期

8 繆因知;;光大證券事件行政處罰與民事索賠之合法性質(zhì)疑[J];法學(xué);2014年01期

9 趙旭東;;內(nèi)幕交易民事責(zé)任的價值平衡與規(guī)則互補——以美國為研究范本[J];比較法研究;2014年02期

10 馮果;內(nèi)幕交易與私權(quán)救濟[J];法學(xué)研究;2000年02期

，

本文編號：1452302