1、 外文翻译 原文 Prohibition of insider trading of securities legislation in a number of issues Material Source: Insider Trading Law and Regulation， Page190， February1996 Author: BRAZIER G Prohibition of insider trading of securities legislation in a number of issues The securities market is a blend of info
2、rmation and capital market information， investors have the right to know to use the information to judge the investment， but the use of insider trading insider trading information， it will disrupt the order of the securities market so that investors feel the market injustice， to stay away from the m
3、arket So that the securities market to finance capital and intended function of frustration. In 1909 the U.S. Supreme Court in the case StrongV.Repide to establish a “special legal violations“ and a stock insider trading sanctions as early as the norm， followed by countries in the securities legisla
4、tion on insider dealing are to be banned， designed to defend “fair“ and “open“ “Fair“ principle， regulate the securities market and protect the rights and interests of investors. First， the need for the Prohibition of insider trading. The need for the Prohibition of insider dealing: the first is con
5、ducive to the maintenance of the stock market “fair， just and open“ and “Three“ principle. Insider staff to re-open for insider trading， will undoubtedly hindered the flow of information， contrary to the principle of openness. Insider trading using a special status， the status of the abuse of inform
6、ation resources， harm the legitimate interests of investors， contrary to the principle of fairness. If not prohibited by insider trading， the market will not be able to achieve a just， “Three“ must exist in name only; Second， is conducive to safeguarding the principle of efficiency. Insider transact
7、ions on the stock market caused investors do not trust， which is no longer involved， which caused the stock market as a whole the countrys political and economic turmoil， more efficient market out of the question; the third will help foster the concept of good faith. Of good faith as a principle of
8、civil law， has been regarded as the basic norms of market behavior. Insider trading against the perpetrator of the abuse of inside information shall not be an obligation to self-interest in the establishment of legitimate investors on the basis of the injured is obviously contrary to the principle o
9、f good faith. Second， the prohibition of insider trading on points of law. (A) on the subject. Insider trading on the definition of the main varies from country to country， but its scope has expanded. U.S. insider trading will be divided into two main traditional in-house staff， quasi-house personne
10、l， civil servants and the third of four people. According to Singapores “Company Law“， any officers， employees or agents who are able to access to classified situation is an internal personnel. In addition， the staff of the wives， husbands and other family members are considered to be in-house staff
11、. And other major shareholders have access to the internal situation of those who were not as in-house staff， but on the Stock Exchange of public policy is concerned， is still regarded as internal staff. According to relevant Chinese laws and regulations， including the main insider trading and insid
12、er noted that non-insiders insider information officer. “ Article 6 states: “Insider staff refers to as holders of the issuers securities， or the issuer or issuers with close ties to the company as a director， supervisors and senior managers， or because of their membership status， Management， superv
13、ision and professional status， or as employees， professional consultants to perform their roles， access to insider information or access to the staff. “Five minutes and be listed in specific. From the area， the traditional in-house staff， used his position to obtain insider information and took adva
14、ntage of his position other than the method is aware of inside information are among the members of the Chinese law， the subject of insider trading. (B) on insider trading. Securities legislation in various countries often different for the main categories listed， in order to specify the precise obj
15、ective of the characteristics of a variety of acts. China， “ Article 4 of 4:00 pm on insider transactions to be listed: (1) using insider information insider trading or securities based on inside information to others proposed the sale of securities; (2) Insider staff leaking insider information to
16、others to make use of another person The information for insider trading; (3) non-insider through improper means or other means of access to insider information， and in accordance with the sale of information; (4) other acts of insider trading. From the “way“， Chinese legislative provisions in the a
17、ct of insider trading on the main objective for the performance of the “use“， “set up“ and “disclosure“ of the three. (C) on insider information. From the legislative point of view， in line with the insider information of the two criteria: (1) the information has not been made public; (2) significan
18、t information， open to the public will have an impact on stock prices. China， “ Article 5 states: “insider information refers to the staff of insider knowledge， has not been made public and that may affect the price of the stock markets major information.“ At the same time， “significant information“
19、 26 hours to define the list， including Issuers related to internal information， stock market prices may have a significant impact on national policy change and other major three types of information， but does not include the use of public information and information on the securities market forecas
20、t and analysis. Third， the insider trading liability. Insider trading， securities legislation in many countries， be severely punished， including civil liability， administrative liability and criminal liability. China “Provisional Regulations“ and “means“ all the provisions on insider trading， accord
21、ing to different situations， the confiscation of illegally acquired money and other illegally acquired in addition to 50， 000 yuan more than 500， 000 yuan fine. March 1997 China Securities Regulatory Commission issued the “Interim Provisions of the Securities Shichangjinru.“ Based on the provisions
22、of the four major categories of personnel as a result of fraud or other violations of the Securities Commission have been identified as Shichangjinru who will be in 3-10 years or a permanent listing of the company shall not serve as senior managers or may not engage in securities business. The new “
23、Criminal Law“ stipulates that serious cases of insider dealing， five years imprisonment or criminal detention， his illegal income or single-Office 1 five times a fine; are particularly serious， more than 5 years to 10 years In prison， and subjected to an illegal income five times fine. Crime units，
24、units of imposing a fine， and is directly responsible for the competent staff and other personnel directly responsible for five years in prison or detention. This shows that Chinas imposition of insider trading to a more stringent criminal liability. In contrast， the Chinese civil insider trading da
25、mages the legal system is extremely weak and only in the “Provisional Regulations“ Article 77， made simple. However， the “fair and impartial analysis of the concept， to the insider dealing damage to the corresponding compensation for economic losses is necessary.“ In civil damages targets， there are
26、 three modes: (1) contrary to engage in good faith on the sale of human liability. Such as the United States， Australia， Singapore， Taiwan and so on; (2) will be in the hands of the proceeds from the company. Such as Britain， Germany; (3) a dual responsibility， in addition to engaging in the sale of
27、 the opposite liable for， such as a special relationship with the company， a request for benefits under the company. This model of the very few countries， such as Canada. Gaps in legislation against China， on the contrary should be allowed to engage in the sale of the damage to the parties sued， but
28、 the burden of proof plaintiffs must prove just the opposite for the sale， and therefore damaged. Of corporate insider trading civil liability， provided China does not. The United States in 1984， “insider trading sanctions law“ provides legal enterprise engaged in insider trading， the companies have
29、 to bear civil liability if the senior management of enterprises so as to the internal information-based business transactions， the business as a direct responsibility for offenders . And the United States directly by the companies responsible， Taiwan， “the Securities and Exchange Law“ Section 179 p
30、rovides that the responsibility be transferred to the person in charge of corporate commitment. On the grounds that civil liability companies， real by the shareholders to share， resulting in damage to the interests of shareholders and the responsibility of the perpetrator from the consequences of in
31、justice. Civil liability for corporate legal persons should be borne by those directly responsible. This is because firstly， an independent civilian body of the main qualifications of the person in charge of legal persons， as well as other senior managers on behalf of the corporation for the conduct
32、 of the law are usually considered to be legal， directly subordinate to the legal consequences of the act， more responsible for the violations is no exception. As for the claim that if the shareholders were responsible for the acts， and so beyond the terms of reference， by means of a separate settle
33、ment of litigation， and so on， are still being resolved by direct corporate civil liability; Second， imagine if the corporate insider trading and found to be liable， While interest income or loss avoided by all legal persons will benefit members of the in-house and， of course， including shareholders
34、， the shareholders are not held accountable when corporate profits， corporate been held accountable when they do not take responsibility， obviously unreasonable; third， According to existing Chinese laws， civil liability of legal persons， accountability does not prevent other senior officials and ma
35、nagers in the civil， administrative and criminal liability. Improve the system of insider trading liability should be noted that the responsibility of co-ordination between three and rationality， therefore， priority should be given to civil liability， so that the transactions in good faith on the co
36、ntrary be compensated for losses suffered. If the first insider trading on the imposition of fines or confiscation of illegally acquired， on the contrary may cause traders to lose objective to protect the legitimate rights and interests， and this prohibition against insider trading legislation to pr
37、otect the rights and interests of investors in mind. Insider trading harm caused by the increasing attention of the national legislation in many countries and regions to prevent insider trading and supervision of all existing legislation to revise and supplement. Chinas securities should be in the f
38、uture legislation to establish and improve internal staff declaration of an open system， in-house staff on a regular basis to the regulatory authorities to declare the number of securities held by the Company of changes; clear the company should fulfill obligations to public information in a timely
39、manner， relevant information published in accordance with the law; open Reporting system to report on the meritorious service awards were given by the regulatory authorities from the offender to pay a civil fine. In addition， the legislation should be to build a stock exchange and the Securities Ind
40、ustry Associations dual system of self-discipline， self-discipline to develop the authority unified regulations， only the combination of law and self-discipline in order to effectively ban on insider trading. 译文 禁止证券内幕交易立法的若干问题 资料来源 ： 内幕交易立法与监管， P190， 1996（ 2） 作者：布雷瑟 G 禁止证券内幕交易立法的若干问题 证券市场是资本与信息交融的资
41、讯市场，投资者有权利用所知信息作出投资判断，但内幕交易人利用内幕信息进行交易，则会扰乱证券市场秩序，使投资者觉得市场不公，远离市场，从而使证券市场融通资金的功能和本意受挫。1909 年美国联邦最高法院在 StrongV.Repide 一 案中确立 “ 特殊情事法理 ” ，成为制裁证券内幕交易的最早规范，之后各国证券立法纷纷对内幕交易加以禁止，旨在捍卫 “ 公平 ” 、 “ 公开 ” 、 “ 公正 ” 原则，规范证券市场，保护投资者权益。 一、 禁止内幕交易的必要性 禁止内幕交易的必要性在于：第一，有利于维护证券市场 “ 公平、公正、公开 ” 的 “ 三公 ” 原则。内幕人员先进行内幕交易再公开
42、信息，无疑会使信息流通受阻，违背公开原则。内幕交易人利用特殊身份、地位滥用信息资源，损害合法投资者的利益，违背公平原则。如果不禁止内幕交易，市场的公正将无法实现， “ 三公 ” 原则必定名存实亡；第二，有利 于维护效率原则。内幕交易会造成投资者对证券市场不信任，不再涉足其中，进而引起证券市场乃至整个国家政治经济的震荡，市场效率更无从谈起；第三，有利于培育诚实信用的理念。诚实信用作为一项民法原则，已经被视作市场行为的基本准则。内幕交易行为人违背了不得滥用内幕信息的义务，将自身利益建立在合法投资者受损害的基础上，显然违背诚信原则。 二、禁止内幕交易的法律要点 （一）关于主体。对内幕交易主体的界定各
43、国不尽一致，但其范围具有日益扩大的趋势。美国将内幕交易主体分为传统的公司内部人员、准内部人员、公务员和第三人四种。根据新 加坡公司法，公司的任何高级职员、雇员或代理人，凡能接触机密情况者即为内部人员。此外，上述人员的妻子、丈夫和其他直系亲属均被视为内部人员。主要股东和其他能获得内部情况者虽不被看作是内部人员，但就证券交易所的公开政策而言，仍被视为内部人员。根据中国相关法规，内幕交易主体包括内幕人员和获悉内幕信息的非内幕人员。办法第 6 条规定： “ 内幕人员是指由于持有发行人的证券，或者在发行人或者与发行人有密切联系的公司中担任董事、监事、高级管理人员，或者由于其会员地位、管理地位、监督地位和
44、职业地位，或者作为雇员、专业顾问履 行职务，能够接触或获得内幕信息的人员。 ” 并分五项予以具体列举。从范围上看，传统的公司内部人员、利用职务之便获取内幕信息的人员和利用职务之便以外的其它方法知悉内幕信息的人员都属于中国法律规定的内幕交易主体。 （二）关于内幕交易行为。各国在证券立法中往往按不同主体进行分类列举，以求确切指明各种行为的客观特点。中国办法第 4 条分四点对内幕交易行为加以列举： （ 1）内幕人员利用内幕信息买卖证券或者根据内幕信息建议他人买卖证券；（ 2）内幕人员向他人泄露内幕信息，使他人利用该信息进行内幕交易；（ 3）非内幕人员通过不正当 的手段或者其他途径获得内幕信息，并根据
45、该信息买卖；（ 4）其他内幕交易行为。从该办法来看，中国立法规定的内幕交易行为在客观上主要表现为 “ 利用 ” 、 “ 建立 ” 、 “ 泄露 ” 三种。 （三）关于内幕信息。从各国立法来看，内幕信息符合两个标准：（ 1）信息尚未公开；（ 2）信息重大，公开后会对股价产生影响。中国办法第 5 条规定： “ 内幕信息是指内幕人员所知悉的，尚未公开的和可能影响证券市场价格的重大信息。 ” 同时，对 “ 重大信息 ” 分 26 条加以列举界定，包括与发行人相关的内部信息、可能对证券市场价格有显著影响的国家政策变化和其它重 大信息三类，但不包括运用公开的信息和资料对证券市场作出的预测和分析。 三、内幕
46、交易的法律责任 对内幕交易行为人，许多国家在证券立法中加以严惩，包括民事法律责任、行政法律责任和刑事法律责任。中国暂行条例和办法均规定，对内幕交易者，根据不同情况，没收非法获取的款项和其他非法所得，并处 5 万元以上 50 万元以下的罚款。 1997 年 3 月中国证监会发布了证券市场禁入暂行规定。依据该规定，四大类人员如因证券欺诈或其它违法行为被证监会认定为市场禁入者的，将在 3 至 10 年内或永久性不得担任上市公司高级管理人员或不得从 事证券业务。新刑法规定，对情节严重的内幕交易人，处 5 年以下有期徒刑或者拘役，并处或者单处违法所得 1 倍以上 5 倍以下罚金；情节特别严重的，处 5
47、年以上 10 年以下有期徒刑，并处违法所得 1 倍以上 5 倍以下罚金。单位犯罪的，对单位判处罚金，并对其直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员处 5 年以下有期徒刑或拘役。由此可见，中国对内幕交易处以较严厉的刑事责任。 相比之下，中国内幕交易民事损害赔偿法律制度极为薄弱，仅在暂行条例第 77 条作了简单的规定。然而， “ 从公平、公正理念分析，向内幕交易的受损方赔偿相应经济损失实为必要 ” 。在民事损害赔偿对象方面，有三种模式：（ 1）对善意从事相反买卖之人负赔偿责任。如美国、澳大利亚、新加坡、台湾地区等；（ 2）将所得收益收归公司。如英国、德国；（ 3）双重责任，除对从事相反买卖的负赔偿责任
48、外，如与公司有特别关系者，公司得请求利益归入。采取这种模式的国家极少，如加拿大。针对中国的立法空白，应当允许从事相反买卖受损的当事人提起诉讼，但原告必须举证证明其刚好为相反买卖，并因此受损。 对法人进行内幕交易的民事责任，中国没有作规定。美国 1984 年内部交易制裁法规定法人企业从事内部交易者，该企业也要承担 民事责任，如果企业的高级管理人员以内部情报为本企业进行交易的，则该企业作为直接违法者承担责任。与美国由企业直接承担责任不同，台湾证券交易法第 179 条规定责任转由法人的负责人承担。理由是公司承担民事责任，实际是由公司股东来分担，造成股东利益受损而行为人责任免除的不公平后果。法人的民事
49、责任应由法人直接承担。因为，第一，法人具有独立民事主体资格，法人的负责人以及其他高级管理人员代表法人所为的行为法律通常认为是法人行为，行为后果直接归属法人，对违法行为的责任更不例外。至于如果股东声称负责人等的行为超出职权范围， 可以通过诉讼等途径另行解决，在解决之前仍应由法人直接承担民事责任；第二，试想如果法人的内幕交易行为未被发现并追究责任，则所得利益或避免的损失将使法人全体内部成员获益，当然也包括股东，股东在法人未被追究责任时得利，在法人被追究责任时却不承担责任，显然不合情理；第三，根据中国现行法律，法人承担民事责任，并不妨碍追究负责人和其他高级管理人员的民事、行政和刑事法律责任。 完善内幕交易法律责任制度必须注意三种责任间的协调性和合理性，因此应优先考虑民事责任，使善意相反交易人所受损失得到补偿。如果先对内幕交易者处以没收非 法所得或罚金，可能造成相反交易人合法权益失去客观保障，这也违背禁止内幕交易立法保护投资者权益
