【摘要】：內(nèi)幕交易破壞了證券市場(chǎng)中的公平,在少數(shù)人非法獲利的同時(shí)損害了廣大投資者的利益,必須通過(guò)民事責(zé)任的承擔(dān)使受損害者得到賠償。本文從比較法的視角分析了美國(guó)、歐盟及我國(guó)等國(guó)家和地區(qū)的內(nèi)幕交易民事責(zé)任法律制度,并嘗試提出其他國(guó)家的先進(jìn)之處對(duì)我國(guó)的借鑒性。 內(nèi)幕交易的定義是整個(gè)內(nèi)幕交易法律制度的基石。第一章中對(duì)內(nèi)幕交易的界定進(jìn)行了全面的分析,從內(nèi)幕信息的基本特征、內(nèi)幕人員的范圍及內(nèi)幕交易行為形態(tài)這三個(gè)方面進(jìn)行了較細(xì)致的比較分析。其中對(duì)內(nèi)幕信息的界定最為詳細(xì),內(nèi)幕信息指尚未公開(kāi)的、對(duì)公司證券價(jià)格可能產(chǎn)生重大影響的消息。在論述了內(nèi)幕信息的重大性和未公開(kāi)性這兩個(gè)基本特征后,還對(duì)存在爭(zhēng)議的信息確切性問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了討論；并且對(duì)信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播這一新問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了深入分析。 第二章通過(guò)討論,將內(nèi)幕交易行為定為特殊侵權(quán)性質(zhì)。筆者認(rèn)為,內(nèi)幕交易民事責(zé)任實(shí)際上是違約和侵權(quán)責(zé)任的競(jìng)合,但將其作為違約責(zé)任來(lái)處理的話有諸多不合法理之處,最重要的是非常不利于投資者權(quán)益的救濟(jì),而將其作為侵權(quán)責(zé)任處理則可以較為圓滿地保護(hù)投資者的利益。在以侵權(quán)行為構(gòu)成理論分析內(nèi)幕交易時(shí),由于其損害結(jié)果計(jì)算和因果關(guān)系證明上的復(fù)雜性,筆者主張將其作為特殊侵權(quán)處理。 第三章承接前文對(duì)損害數(shù)額的計(jì)算和因果關(guān)系的證明這兩個(gè)復(fù)雜問(wèn)題進(jìn)行比較研究,分析美國(guó)、臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的差價(jià)計(jì)算方法和推定因果關(guān)系作法的優(yōu)點(diǎn)和其在我國(guó)的可行性,提倡引進(jìn)這些先進(jìn)方法。 第四章主要論述內(nèi)幕交易民事責(zé)任的實(shí)現(xiàn)方法即民事訴訟制度。在確定原告數(shù)量這一難題上,美國(guó)的“同時(shí)交易理論”可操作性很強(qiáng),非常適合引進(jìn)。通過(guò)比較發(fā)現(xiàn),我國(guó)證監(jiān)會(huì)作為專門(mén)證券監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu),與美國(guó)、英國(guó)的同類機(jī)構(gòu)相比之下缺失了在民事責(zé)任追究方面的職能,筆者認(rèn)為可以就此另設(shè)一個(gè)承擔(dān)此職能的獨(dú)立機(jī)構(gòu)。在最終訴訟方式上,美國(guó)的集團(tuán)訴訟能夠?yàn)橥顿Y者提供強(qiáng)大的支持,我國(guó)應(yīng)借鑒其優(yōu)點(diǎn)對(duì)現(xiàn)有共同訴訟制度進(jìn)行改進(jìn)。
[Abstract]:Insider trading undermines the fairness of the securities market and damages the interests of the investors while making illegal profits for a small number of people. The damage must be compensated through the assumption of civil liability. This paper analyzes the civil liability legal system of insider trading in the United States, European Union and China from the perspective of comparative law, and tries to put forward the advanced points of other countries for reference to our country. The definition of insider trading is the cornerstone of the whole legal system of insider trading. The first chapter makes a comprehensive analysis of the definition of insider trading, from the basic characteristics of insider information, the scope of insider trading behavior and insider trading behavior of the three aspects of a more detailed comparative analysis. The definition of insider information is the most detailed. Insider information refers to the information that has not yet been made public and may have a significant impact on the price of company securities. After discussing the two basic characteristics of inside information, the importance and non-disclosure, the paper also discusses the controversial issue of the accuracy of information, and makes a thorough analysis of the new problem of information network dissemination. The second chapter, through the discussion, regards the insider trading behavior as the special tort nature. The author thinks that the civil liability of insider trading is actually the concurrence of breach of contract and tort liability, but there are many illegalities to deal with it as breach of contract liability, and the most important thing is that it is very unfavorable to the relief of investors' rights and interests. The treatment of tort liability can protect the interests of investors more satisfactorily. In the analysis of insider trading based on the theory of tort constitution, due to the complexity of the calculation of the damage result and the proof of causality, the author proposes to treat it as a special tort. Chapter three carries on the comparative study on the two complicated problems of calculating the amount of damage and proving the causality, and analyzes the advantages and feasibility of the method of calculating the post price and the method of presuming causality in the United States and Taiwan, as well as its feasibility in our country. We advocate the introduction of these advanced methods. The fourth chapter mainly discusses the realization method of insider trading civil liability, that is, civil litigation system. In determining the number of plaintiffs, the "simultaneous transaction theory" in the United States is very operational, very suitable for introduction. By comparison, it is found that China Securities Regulatory Commission, as a special securities regulatory agency, lacks the function of civil liability investigation in comparison with the similar institutions in the United States and Britain. The author believes that an independent institution can be set up to undertake this function. In the final litigation mode, American group litigation can provide strong support for investors, our country should learn from its advantages to improve the existing joint action system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D923;D922.287;F832.51

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張宗新;楊懷杰;;內(nèi)幕交易監(jiān)管的國(guó)際比較及其對(duì)中國(guó)的啟示[J];當(dāng)代經(jīng)濟(jì)研究;2006年08期

2 趙嵐;鮑民明;;論我國(guó)證券市場(chǎng)內(nèi)幕交易的民事責(zé)任制度[J];法制與社會(huì);2007年01期

3 吳弘,王菲萍;論證券欺詐民事責(zé)任的完善[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1999年03期

4 李文莉;;內(nèi)幕交易的構(gòu)成要件淺析[J];合肥學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年01期

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

6 王赫;試論我國(guó)證券內(nèi)幕交易立法的完善[J];蘭州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);1998年02期

7 彭晶;;內(nèi)幕交易罪的認(rèn)定及有關(guān)爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2011年09期

8 葛現(xiàn)琴;證券內(nèi)幕交易民事賠償責(zé)任研究[J];求索;2005年02期

9 王祺;;淺談美國(guó)上市公司信息披露制度[J];商業(yè)文化(下半月);2011年02期

10 章武生;;論群體性糾紛的解決機(jī)制——美國(guó)集團(tuán)訴訟的分析和借鑒[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2007年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 孔令臣;論美國(guó)證券集團(tuán)訴訟對(duì)我國(guó)的借鑒意義[D];華南理工大學(xué);2011年

2 丁建國(guó);論上市公司信息披露制度[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2002年

3 孫國(guó)平;美國(guó)證券集團(tuán)訴訟制度研究及對(duì)中國(guó)之借鑒[D];蘇州大學(xué);2004年

4 宋筱琦;英國(guó)證券內(nèi)幕交易的規(guī)制及其對(duì)中國(guó)的借鑒[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2005年

5 丁薇;美國(guó)內(nèi)幕交易歸責(zé)理論研究[D];山東大學(xué);2007年

6 蔣瑩;論內(nèi)幕交易的認(rèn)定[D];吉林大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：2210847