發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-03-08 13:07

【摘要】：操縱證券市場和虛假陳述、內(nèi)幕交易是證券侵權(quán)行為的三種主要表現(xiàn)形態(tài)。證券侵權(quán)行為是一種特殊的民事侵權(quán)行為,由于證券市場的復(fù)雜性和行為的高技術(shù)性等特征,使得其一出現(xiàn)就伴隨著與一般民事侵權(quán)行為不同的色彩,從而成為眾多學(xué)者研究的對象。證券市場出現(xiàn)較一般商品交易市場較晚,交易規(guī)則與法律規(guī)制規(guī)則均處在探索階段,我國證券市場發(fā)展晚于其他國家,規(guī)則也大多為泊來之品。由于法律規(guī)則的不完善和交易市場主體的不誠信等原因,使得我國證券市場發(fā)展問題層出,證券侵權(quán)行為較為猖獗,而操縱證券市場行為也不例外。操縱證券市場不僅妨礙了證券交易的正常開展,損害了廣大投資者的合法權(quán)益,更是阻礙了證券市場的健康有序發(fā)展。但是我國目前對操縱證券市場行為責(zé)任的追究基本上限于行政責(zé)任和刑事責(zé)任,對于民事責(zé)任幾乎是空白�？v觀各國司法實(shí)踐,行政責(zé)任和刑事責(zé)任不應(yīng)當(dāng)優(yōu)先于民事責(zé)任,操縱證券市場對廣大投資者帶來的損害是不可逆轉(zhuǎn)的,而彌補(bǔ)這種損害只能依賴于民事責(zé)任,維護(hù)證券市場的公平發(fā)展離不開民事賠償制度的完善,而因果關(guān)系的認(rèn)定則成為首要解決的問題。所謂操縱證券市場民事責(zé)任的因果關(guān)系,即是指投資者的損害事實(shí)與操縱者的操縱行為之間具有的因果關(guān)系。 在我國,操縱證券市場民事責(zé)任的判例中采用的是必然因果關(guān)系理論,即投資者的損害事實(shí)與操縱行為之間必須存在必然的,本質(zhì)的聯(lián)系。除去在實(shí)踐中運(yùn)用的必然因果關(guān)系理論之外,學(xué)者多主張采用信賴推定規(guī)則和相當(dāng)因果關(guān)系理論。信賴推定規(guī)則來源于美國,基礎(chǔ)是“欺詐市場理論”,信賴推定規(guī)則經(jīng)過很長時(shí)間的發(fā)展最終在美國得以確立,成為認(rèn)定操縱證券市場民事責(zé)任因果關(guān)系的最主要的規(guī)則。有學(xué)者提出我國也應(yīng)當(dāng)運(yùn)用信賴推定規(guī)則對因果關(guān)系進(jìn)行認(rèn)定,也有學(xué)者認(rèn)為該規(guī)則在我國不具有適用的前提,即半強(qiáng)勢的有效市場�；诖�,學(xué)者提出了相當(dāng)因果關(guān)系理論,相當(dāng)因果關(guān)系理論是在條件理論的基礎(chǔ)上發(fā)展而來的,是大陸法系一般因果關(guān)系認(rèn)定的主要方式。信賴推定規(guī)則與相當(dāng)因果關(guān)系理論在我國究竟能不能適用?應(yīng)當(dāng)如何適用? 最高院出臺了《關(guān)于審理證券市場因虛假陳述引發(fā)的民事賠償案件的若干規(guī)定》,自此結(jié)束了必然因果關(guān)系理論在虛假陳述民事責(zé)任因果關(guān)系判定中的運(yùn)用,也引發(fā)了一輪虛假陳述民事責(zé)任的因果關(guān)系認(rèn)定問題的討論。同為證券侵權(quán)行為的一種,處于同一證券市場,操縱證券市場民事責(zé)任的因果關(guān)系認(rèn)定又該何去何從?筆者在梳理了我國操縱證券市場民事責(zé)任因果關(guān)系認(rèn)定的現(xiàn)狀、司法裁判實(shí)務(wù)和學(xué)者理論的基礎(chǔ)上,結(jié)合一般民事侵權(quán)行為民事責(zé)任因果關(guān)系的認(rèn)定規(guī)則和操縱證券市場行為基本形態(tài)下因果關(guān)系一般樣態(tài)的分析,以期對其做出一個(gè)系統(tǒng)的闡述與分析。
[Abstract]:Manipulation of securities market and false statements, insider trading is the three main forms of securities infringement. The securities tort is a kind of special civil tort. Because of the complexity of the securities market and the high technical characteristics of the behavior, one of them is accompanied by a different color from the general civil tort. As a result, it has become the object of many scholars' research. The stock market appears later than the general commodity exchange market, the trading rules and the legal regulation rules are both in the exploration stage. The development of our securities market is later than that of other countries, and most of the rules are the products of our country. Due to the imperfection of the legal rules and the dishonesty of the main body of the trading market, the problems of the development of our country's securities market arise. The securities infringement is more rampant, and the manipulation of the securities market is no exception. The manipulation of securities market not only hinders the normal development of securities trading, damages the legitimate rights and interests of investors, but also hinders the healthy and orderly development of securities market. However, at present, the liability for manipulation of securities market in China is basically limited to administrative responsibility and criminal liability, which is almost blank for civil liability. Throughout the judicial practice of various countries, administrative liability and criminal liability should not take precedence over civil liability, and the damage caused by the manipulation of the securities market to the vast majority of investors is irreversible, and compensation for such damage can only depend on civil liability, To maintain the fair development of securities market can not be separated from the perfection of civil compensation system, and the identification of causation becomes the primary problem to be solved. The causation of civil liability for manipulation of securities market refers to the causal relationship between the damage facts of investors and the manipulation of manipulators. In our country, the theory of inevitable causality is adopted in the case law of civil liability for manipulation of securities market, that is, there must be an inevitable and essential connection between the damage facts of investors and the manipulation behavior. In addition to the theory of inevitable causality applied in practice, scholars mostly advocate the rule of presumption of trust and the theory of equivalent causality. The rule of presumption of trust comes from the United States and is based on the "Fraud Market Theory". After a long period of development, the rule of presumption of trust has been established in the United States, and has become the most important rule for determining the causal relationship of civil liability in securities market manipulation. Some scholars put forward that the rule of presumption of trust should also be used to identify causality in our country, and some scholars think that the rule does not have the premise of application in our country, that is, semi-strong efficient market. Based on this, scholars put forward the theory of equivalent causality, which is developed on the basis of conditional theory and is the main way of determining the general causal relationship in continental law system. Can the rule of presumption of trust and the theory of equivalent causality be applied in our country? How should it apply? The Supreme Court issued several provisions on the trial of Civil compensation cases caused by false statements in the Securities Market, which has since ended the application of the theory of inevitable causality in the determination of civil liability for false statements. It also leads to a discussion on the causation of civil liability for false statements. The same is a kind of securities infringement, in the same securities market, how to determine the cause and effect of civil liability of securities market manipulation? On the basis of combing the status quo of the causation of civil liability in China's securities market manipulation, judicial practice and scholars' theory, Combined with the rules of determining civil liability and the general pattern of causation in the basic form of securities market manipulation, the author hopes to make a systematic exposition and analysis of the causation in order to make a systematic analysis of it.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D922.287;D923

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 甘德健;;操縱證券市場民事責(zé)任幾個(gè)重要問題的探討[J];金融經(jīng)濟(jì);2007年12期

2 俞志方;彭波;鄭小明;;證券違規(guī)犯罪根源透視及法律對策[J];理論導(dǎo)報(bào);2004年12期

3 陸昊;;操縱證券市場犯罪疑難問題研究[J];中國檢察官;2011年09期

4 鄭啟福;論完善操縱證券市場的私權(quán)救濟(jì)[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年04期

5 張杰鴻;;操縱證券市場的民事責(zé)任制度研究[J];學(xué)理論;2011年17期

6 蔡寶剛;;操縱證券行情及其法律責(zé)任探析[J];揚(yáng)州師院學(xué)報(bào)(社會科學(xué)版);1996年02期

7 ;哪些人是證券市場禁入者?[J];中國招標(biāo);1998年30期

8 顧肖榮;關(guān)于操縱證券市場行為認(rèn)定和處罰中若干問題比較[J];政治與法律;1999年05期

9 裴小梅;醫(yī)療行為的司法鑒定及相關(guān)法律責(zé)任[J];中國司法鑒定;2005年04期

10 周玉文;;張某訴福建某醫(yī)院醫(yī)療事故糾紛案鑒定結(jié)論及新證據(jù)分析[J];法律與醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2007年03期

相關(guān)會議論文 前10條

1 蔣堯明;;上市公司財(cái)務(wù)預(yù)測信息虛假陳述民事責(zé)任若干問題研究[A];中國會計(jì)學(xué)會財(cái)務(wù)成本分會2006年年會暨第19次理論研討會論文集（下）[C];2006年

2 熊進(jìn)光;;證券欺詐民事責(zé)任制度研究[A];中國商法年刊創(chuàng)刊號（2001）[C];2001年

3 曾長佑;陳敏;;預(yù)防接種副反應(yīng)民事法律責(zé)任淺析[A];第二屆浙江中西部科技論壇論文集第七卷（預(yù)防醫(yī)學(xué)分卷）[C];2005年

4 鄧曉敏;;環(huán)境侵權(quán)民事責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則和構(gòu)成要件[A];資源節(jié)約型、環(huán)境友好型社會建設(shè)與環(huán)境資源法的熱點(diǎn)問題研究——2006年全國環(huán)境資源法學(xué)研討會論文集（一）[C];2006年

5 郭顯剛;;環(huán)境侵權(quán)民事責(zé)任中的舉證責(zé)任分配問題分析[A];資源節(jié)約型、環(huán)境友好型社會建設(shè)與環(huán)境資源法的熱點(diǎn)問題研究——2006年全國環(huán)境資源法學(xué)研討會論文集（四）[C];2006年

6 殷之杰;周吉高;鞠恒;;建設(shè)單位對建設(shè)工程安全事故損害相鄰建筑物特殊侵權(quán)的無過錯(cuò)民事責(zé)任及追償權(quán)[A];中國民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2001年

7 張蕊;;注冊會計(jì)師的民事責(zé)任及其抗辯[A];新經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)境下的會計(jì)與財(cái)務(wù)問題研討會論文集[C];2002年

8 黨江舟;莫神星;;從玉林大氣污染損害賠償案,談環(huán)境污染民事責(zé)任的追究[A];林業(yè)、森林與野生動植物資源保護(hù)法制建設(shè)研究——2004年中國環(huán)境資源法學(xué)研討會（年會）論文集（第三冊）[C];2004年

9 曾智;楊悅;;藥害事件中制藥企業(yè)和醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu)的民事責(zé)任研究[A];2009年中國藥學(xué)會藥事管理專業(yè)委員會年會暨“國家藥物政策與《藥品管理法》修訂研究”論壇論文文集[C];2009年

10 王曉強(qiáng);;公司設(shè)立中的民事責(zé)任[A];中國民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2004年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 記者 張歡;我國首例操縱證券市場案在京開審[N];上海證券報(bào);2010年

2 記者 公磊　李京華;“操縱證券市場第一案”在京開審[N];新華每日電訊;2010年

3 本報(bào)記者 周芬棉;股市“黑嘴”一審獲刑7年被判罰金1.25億元[N];法制日報(bào);2011年

4 記者 翟蘭云　通訊員 陸昊;股市“黑嘴”汪建中一審獲刑七年[N];檢察日報(bào);2011年

5 記者 何靖;“股市黑嘴”汪建中出庭受審[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

6 商報(bào)記者 李子君　潘敏;汪建中成“股市黑嘴”處罰標(biāo)桿[N];北京商報(bào);2011年

7 本報(bào)實(shí)習(xí)生 尤，

本文編號：2436835