本文選題：Libor + WM/R匯率　； 參考：《上海金融》2017年07期

【摘要】：Libor及WM/R匯率指數(shù)代表了金融基準(zhǔn)產(chǎn)生的兩種機(jī)制:通過報價產(chǎn)生與通過真實交易產(chǎn)生。在金融基準(zhǔn)被法律文件明確援引的情況下,基準(zhǔn)已不再是提示價格的一種"信息"或"參照",這使得金融基準(zhǔn)具有的"合同硬相關(guān)"等屬性。金融基準(zhǔn)操縱突破了傳統(tǒng)理論界對"市場操縱"、"價格操縱"的認(rèn)識,也對現(xiàn)有以"欺詐"為要件的監(jiān)管法律框架提出了挑戰(zhàn)。金融消費(fèi)者由于報價行合謀而遭受的壟斷損失是否有資格獲得民事賠償?如果金融基準(zhǔn)就是法律意義上的"價格",那么現(xiàn)有針對價格操縱的法律規(guī)制能否對金融基準(zhǔn)操縱直接適用?在改革路徑上,像歐盟立法一樣,要求增加金融基準(zhǔn)計算數(shù)據(jù)的客觀性、如以回購利率替代報價利率能否有效預(yù)防操縱?還是參照美國《商品交易法》第9條第1款建立"價格報告規(guī)則"從而將"價格"進(jìn)行細(xì)化、對任何"影響價格"的行為都認(rèn)定為違法、更能有效打擊犯罪?本文將試圖回答這些問題,并基于國際金融風(fēng)險外溢性突出的考慮,建議我國《刑法》前瞻性地新增"操縱市場基準(zhǔn)罪"。
[Abstract]:The Libor and WM/R exchange rate index represent two mechanisms of financial benchmark generation: through quoted price and through real transaction. When the financial benchmark is explicitly invoked in the legal documents, it is no longer a kind of "information" or "reference" to prompt the price, which makes the financial benchmark have the attributes of "contract hard correlation" and so on. Financial benchmark manipulation breaks through the traditional theoretical circle's understanding of "market manipulation" and "price manipulation", and challenges the existing regulatory legal framework of "fraud". Are financial consumers eligible for civil compensation for monopoly losses suffered by collusion of quoting firms? If the financial benchmark is the "price" in the legal sense, can the existing legal regulation on price manipulation be directly applicable to the financial benchmark manipulation? On the path of reform, like EU legislation, would it be effective to prevent manipulation by requiring more objectivity in financial benchmark calculations, such as the replacement of quote rates with repo rates? Or is it more effective to crack down on crime by establishing "price reporting rules" in accordance with section 9, paragraph 1, of the United States Commodity Exchange Act, so as to refine "prices" and make any "price impact" illegal? This article will try to answer these questions, and based on the outstanding international financial risk spillover considerations, it is suggested that our country's Criminal Law should add the crime of "manipulating the benchmark of the market" forwardly.
【作者單位】： 華東政法大學(xué);
【分類號】：D924.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 謝杰;;搶先交易刑法規(guī)制全球考察——比較法視野下市場操縱犯罪法律完善的啟示[J];海峽法學(xué);2012年01期

，

本文編號：1788357