| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 法律學研究所 === 105 === Both in court and in school, the interpretation and application of code 155 of the Securities Exchange Law are in extreme dispute. Even on legislative level, the differences between the scholars are not at any hope of dissapearring. The root of this problem is that we are not quite sure what legal good we are trying to protect through the criminal liabilities this regulation could enforce upon. Even if we do know what legal good this regulation is really protecting, is this legal good a legitimate one? Is it really worth protecting by imposing criminal liabilities? Those would be the next questions. This paper enlisted all the legal goods theories that have been pointed out on this issue by Taiwanese and American scholars, after analyzing them, only “personal property legal good”is the legitimate legal good of this regulation is the conclusion of this paper. Based on the aforementioned understanding, this paper rethinks the definition of manipulation on the stock market and if it is truly a problem worth regulating, and if it is a problem, if it is worth regulating by criminal law. After apprehending that the nature of manipulation is fraud, not only does it need to be regulated but also needs to be regulated by criminal law. The fraud clause in Taiwanese criminal law calls for a specific intent of the wrongdoer, the wrongdoer has to have an intent of gainging interests. On the other hand, the fraud clause in Securities Exchange Law has no words for a specific intent; however, this way the scope of the fraud clause in Securities Exchange Law might be to broad. In conclusion, this paper suggests that the fraud clause in Secutities Exchange Law adds “intent of illegal gaining of interests or damaging the interests of other’s”to its words.
|
|---|
