【摘要】：隨著資本市場的深化發(fā)展,近年來證券市場中出現(xiàn)了一系列行為模式新穎、涉案金額特別巨大的操縱證券市場案件。但司法實(shí)踐中,該類案件大多以行政處罰了事而刑事處罰較少,這一方面與行為本身具有行政違法性和刑事違法性雙重屬性有關(guān),但究其根本原因在于該罪的司法適用和認(rèn)定尚存在一系列疑難問題。故本文嘗試通過統(tǒng)計(jì)2008年到2017年3月有關(guān)操縱市場的行政及刑事案件有關(guān)信息,結(jié)合分析汪健中搶帽子等典型案例,在借鑒美國、日本和我國臺(tái)灣地區(qū)對操縱證券犯罪的立法及因果關(guān)系判斷的基礎(chǔ)上,解決我國操縱證券市場犯罪中行為方式界定、兜底條款適用及因果關(guān)系認(rèn)定、“兩法”銜接等司法適用中的疑難問題,以期為把握操縱證券市場犯罪基本司法判斷規(guī)則提出個(gè)人意見,為金融管理秩序的健康有序運(yùn)行提供思路和方法。正文共分為四個(gè)部分:第一部分闡述了操縱證券市場客觀行為方式。對于連續(xù)交易操縱主要應(yīng)把握“資源優(yōu)勢”的判斷及對“連續(xù)買賣”和“聯(lián)合買賣”的理解。對于相對委托操縱主要應(yīng)關(guān)注“與他人串通”、“對證券交易價(jià)格或交易量影響的理解,把握大宗交易相對委托的性質(zhì)。而對于洗售操縱應(yīng)關(guān)注“實(shí)際控制的賬戶”(行為要件)的界定、結(jié)果要件的理解及與當(dāng)日沖銷行為的區(qū)分。第二部分闡述了對操縱證券市場罪中“兜底條款”的理解。當(dāng)前刑法對操縱證券市場罪兜底條款的規(guī)定存在模糊之處,從某種程度上其仍保留著“口袋罪”的特征。為避免刑罰處罰范圍過寬的局面,司法者在對本罪兜底條款予以理解和入罪適用時(shí),應(yīng)在罪刑法定的框架下,堅(jiān)持嚴(yán)格解釋與同類解釋規(guī)則,進(jìn)而結(jié)合實(shí)際明晰可能的操縱證券市場情形。建議將蠱惑交易、虛假申報(bào)、安定操作和違約交割等操縱行為納入兜底條款適用情形予以刑法規(guī)制。第三部分闡述了操縱證券市場罪因果關(guān)系的判斷。操縱證券市場行為的隱蔽性與專業(yè)性、證券交易的復(fù)雜性等因素決定本罪的操縱行為及結(jié)果事實(shí)之間存在因果關(guān)系認(rèn)定難的問題。在借鑒美國的“資本市場欺詐理論”、日本的“間接反證理論”、臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的推定因果關(guān)系理論的基礎(chǔ)上,建議我國操縱證券市場犯罪因果關(guān)系判斷時(shí)也采推定因果關(guān)系理論。第四部分闡述了證券市場中的操縱行為在行政處罰法與刑事法律中的銜接問題。當(dāng)前操縱證券市場的司法實(shí)踐中存在違法與犯罪界限不明、以罰代刑嚴(yán)重、行政程序與刑事訴訟程序不協(xié)調(diào)等問題。因行政違法與刑事犯罪有著不同的法律特征,故在司法判斷中首先需要厘清操縱證券市場罪行政違法與刑事犯罪的區(qū)別,同時(shí)在“兩法銜接”問題上,需要優(yōu)化操縱證券市場罪刑罰配置,完善檢察機(jī)關(guān)的法律監(jiān)督機(jī)制和案件移送機(jī)制,并建立操縱證券市場案件信息共享平臺(tái)。
[Abstract]:With the deepening development of capital market, in recent years, a series of new behavior patterns have emerged in the securities market, involving a huge amount of money to manipulate the securities market cases. However, in judicial practice, most of these cases have been punished by administrative punishment but less by criminal punishment, which is related to the dual attributes of administrative illegality and criminal illegality. However, the fundamental reason is that there are still a series of difficult problems in the judicial application and cognizance of the crime. Therefore, this paper attempts to use the United States for reference through statistics on administrative and criminal cases related to market manipulation from 2008 to March 2017, combined with the analysis of typical cases such as Wang Jian's snatching a hat. On the basis of legislation and causality judgment of securities manipulation crime in Japan and Taiwan, this paper resolves the definition of behavior in the crime of manipulating securities market in our country, the application of bottom clause and the determination of causality. The difficult problems in the judicial application such as the connection of "two laws" are expected to put forward personal opinions for grasping the basic judicial judgment rules of crimes committed by manipulating the securities market, and to provide ideas and methods for the healthy and orderly operation of the financial management order. The text is divided into four parts: the first part expounds the objective behavior of manipulating the securities market. The judgment of "resource advantage" and the understanding of "continuous trading" and "joint trading" should be grasped for continuous trading manipulation. For the operation of relative entrustment, we should pay attention to "colluding with others", "understanding the influence of securities trading price or trading volume, and grasping the nature of relative entrustment in bulk trading." However, the definition of "actual controlled account" (behavior element), the understanding of result elements and the distinction between washing and selling manipulation and day sterilizing behavior should be paid attention to. The second part expounds the understanding of the "bottom clause" in the crime of manipulating the securities market. At present, the provisions of the criminal law on the crime of manipulating the securities market are vague, and to some extent they still retain the characteristics of "pocket crime". In order to avoid the situation that the scope of punishment is too wide, when the judicator understands and incriminates the clause of this crime, he should insist on strict interpretation and the same interpretation rules under the framework of legally prescribed punishment for a crime. Combined with the actual situation of the possible manipulation of the securities market. It is suggested that the manipulation of demagoguery, false declaration, stable operation and delivery of breach of contract should be regulated by criminal law. The third part expounds the judgment of the causality of the crime of manipulating the securities market. The covert and professional nature of the manipulation of securities market, the complexity of securities trading and other factors determine the problem of causality between the manipulation of the crime and the result facts. On the basis of the "capital market fraud theory" of the United States, the "indirect countervailing theory" of Japan and the theory of the presumption of causality in Taiwan, it is suggested that our country should adopt the theory of presumption causality when judging the causality of crime in manipulating the securities market. The fourth part expounds the connection of manipulation in the law of administrative punishment and criminal law. In the current judicial practice of manipulating the securities market, there are some problems, such as the illegality and the crime are not clear, the penalty for punishment is serious, and the administrative procedure is not in harmony with the criminal procedure. Because of the different legal characteristics between administrative violations and criminal offences, it is necessary to clarify the differences between administrative violations and criminal crimes in the judicial judgment, and at the same time, to link up the two laws, it is necessary to clarify the differences between the administrative violations and criminal crimes in the crime of manipulating the securities market, at the same time, It is necessary to optimize the penalty allocation of the crime of manipulating the securities market, perfect the legal supervision mechanism and the case transfer mechanism of the procuratorial organs, and establish the information sharing platform of the cases of manipulating the securities market.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華中師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 廖升;;操縱證券市場侵權(quán)責(zé)任之因果關(guān)系[J];法學(xué)評論;2017年01期

2 王新;;操縱證券市場犯罪之主觀故意的認(rèn)定[J];中國刑事法雜志;2016年06期

3 鄭佳寧;;操縱證券市場行為法律認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的實(shí)證研究與再審視[J];政法論叢;2016年05期

4 熊永明;徐艷君;;操縱證券、期貨市場罪“兜底條款”的適用研究[J];法律適用;2016年10期

5 楊彩霞;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)著作權(quán)“兩法銜接”程序機(jī)制之完善研究[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(法學(xué)版);2016年04期

6 湯欣;高海濤;;證券市場操縱行為認(rèn)定研究——行政處罰案例的視角[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2016年04期

7 田宏杰;;操縱證券市場罪:行為本質(zhì)及其司法認(rèn)定[J];中國人民大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2014年04期

8 吳波;;操縱證券市場犯罪法律適用疑難問題研究——基于實(shí)證的視角[J];中國刑事法雜志;2014年03期

9 何榮功;;刑法“兜底條款”的適用與“搶帽子交易”的定性[J];法學(xué);2011年06期

10 王崇青;;“搶帽子”交易的刑法性質(zhì)探析——以汪建中操縱證券市場案為視角[J];政治與法律;2011年01期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王崇青;全流通時(shí)代的證券犯罪問題研究[D];武漢大學(xué);2012年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 王維革;操縱證券市場罪研究[D];貴州大學(xué);2016年

2 龔浩川;操縱證券市場行為法律規(guī)制實(shí)證研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2015年

3 薛冰;操縱證券市場行為的法律問題研究[D];西北大學(xué);2014年

4 吳舟;論經(jīng)濟(jì)犯罪刑法條文兜底條款的解釋路徑[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

5 陳俐萍;操縱證券市場民事責(zé)任的因果關(guān)系研究[D];南京大學(xué);2013年

6 何覓然;操縱證券市場罪相關(guān)問題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年

7 李希;操縱證券市場民事責(zé)任因果關(guān)系研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2013年

8 章靜;論搶帽子交易操縱行為的構(gòu)成[D];南京大學(xué);2011年

9 高建超;操縱證券市場行為之刑法規(guī)制研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

10 仲偉光;操縱證券市場行為認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號：2283160