The Research on the Criminal Liability of Security Secondary Market Manipulation in Taiwan

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 th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Chia Han Lin, 林佳漢
Other Authors: 王皇玉
Format: Others
Language:zh-TW
Published: 2016
Online Access:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/776xyu
id ndltd-TW-105NTU05194007
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-TW-105NTU051940072019-05-15T23:17:02Z http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/776xyu The Research on the Criminal Liability of Security Secondary Market Manipulation in Taiwan 我國證券流通市場操縱行為刑事責任之研究 Chia Han Lin 林佳漢 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. 王皇玉 2016 學位論文 ; thesis 146 zh-TW
collection NDLTD
language zh-TW
format Others
sources NDLTD
description 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.
author2 王皇玉
author_facet 王皇玉
Chia Han Lin
林佳漢
author Chia Han Lin
林佳漢
spellingShingle Chia Han Lin
林佳漢
The Research on the Criminal Liability of Security Secondary Market Manipulation in Taiwan
author_sort Chia Han Lin
title The Research on the Criminal Liability of Security Secondary Market Manipulation in Taiwan
title_short The Research on the Criminal Liability of Security Secondary Market Manipulation in Taiwan
title_full The Research on the Criminal Liability of Security Secondary Market Manipulation in Taiwan
title_fullStr The Research on the Criminal Liability of Security Secondary Market Manipulation in Taiwan
title_full_unstemmed The Research on the Criminal Liability of Security Secondary Market Manipulation in Taiwan
title_sort research on the criminal liability of security secondary market manipulation in taiwan
publishDate 2016
url http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/776xyu
work_keys_str_mv AT chiahanlin theresearchonthecriminalliabilityofsecuritysecondarymarketmanipulationintaiwan
AT línjiāhàn theresearchonthecriminalliabilityofsecuritysecondarymarketmanipulationintaiwan
AT chiahanlin wǒguózhèngquànliútōngshìchǎngcāozòngxíngwèixíngshìzérènzhīyánjiū
AT línjiāhàn wǒguózhèngquànliútōngshìchǎngcāozòngxíngwèixíngshìzérènzhīyánjiū
AT chiahanlin researchonthecriminalliabilityofsecuritysecondarymarketmanipulationintaiwan
AT línjiāhàn researchonthecriminalliabilityofsecuritysecondarymarketmanipulationintaiwan
_version_ 1719143689876406272