論證券交易法上非常規交易罪與特殊背信罪之實證研究-以真假交易為討論核心

Abstract

民國(下同)93年4月28日我國立法者考量企業掏空事件頻傳，企業經營者利用職務之便挪用公款或利用職權掏空公司資產情形，嚴重影響企業經營及金融安定，並損及廣大投資人權益，實有必要嚴以懲處，特立法增訂證券交易法(下稱：證交法)第171條第1項第3款特別背信罪，而實務判決中，有以證交法第171條第1項第3款特別背信罪與同項第2款非常規交易罪併列應有所區分為由，限縮證交法第171條第1項第2款非常規交易罪之規範範圍僅限於真實交易，同項第3款特別背信罪則限於虛偽交易，亦有表示只要形式上具有交易行為之外觀，實質上對公司不利益，而與一般常規交易顯不相當，自屬不合營業常規之範疇，顯見對非常規交易罪及特別背信罪之適用，是否因案係真實或虛偽交易而有所不同，實務判決並無統一之見解，本文擬就兩款之立法目的、構成要件、保護法益、法條競合等各方面加以分析，並統整學說及實務之見解，試就此爭議作一綜整。

As the economic crime of corporate corruption emerged, including draining funds and misappropriating company assets ,the ”special breach of trustfulness in securities “of Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of Article 171 of the ROC Securities and Exchange Act was added and promulgated on 28 April ,2004 to maintain the order of economic , finance and business activity , while protecting the widespread investors. In the recent criminal judgments, some courts hold that the ” special breach of trustfulness in securities” should be clearly distinguished from the “non-arm’s length transaction” of Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of Article 171 of the Securities and Exchange Act, for the reason that the restriction of the Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of Article 171 specification range was limited to the real transaction , with Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of Article 171 is limited to wash sales. Also some courts hold that if the transaction with the appearance of trading activity was virtually a harmful trading, and apparently was different from the general trading should be regulated by the “non-arm’s length transaction” “.It is still pending that can we apply the type of transaction to the judgments of the “non-arm’s length transaction” and the ”special breach of trustfulness in securities “. This article is aimed to analysis the constitution, the legal interest, the legislative purposes and the penalties concurrence of the non-arm’s length transaction and the special breach of trustfulness in Securities, and to investigate the controversy between the theories and the criminal cases to try to propose the recommendations to settle the legal dispute.