证券虚假信息规制的原理反思与实证评价

Theoretical Reflection and Empirical Evaluation on Securities False Information Regulation

非法定信息披露主体在非法定披露渠道编造或传播证券虚假信息所能引发的后果,应当与法定披露主体在法定披露渠道作出的虚假陈述所能引发的后果相区别。投资者只应对法定披露信息产生合理信赖。我国《证券法》规定的积极和消极披露义务主体均为对市场有影响力的特定人,但证监会在规则制定和执法中将之进行扩张解释,值得检讨。对虚假信息责任的追究,应在主体上坚持有市场影响力的特殊主体标准,同时在客体上坚持事实性信息虚假且具有重大性的标准。这样方符合《证券法》的本意,也与对法定信息披露义务人的虚假陈述责任制度相匹配。否则意味着推定投资者对普通主体随意作出的不实言论也能产生合理信赖,这有碍于证券信息规制的正面建设。对证券虚假信息的治理,不应依靠公法责任的强化,而应依靠社会化的综合治理,包括加强投资者教育,凸显法定信息披露渠道的权威性等。

Results of false securities information made or disseminated by non-disclosure obligators in non-statutory disclosure channels should be distinguished from misrepresentations given by disclosure obligators in statutory disclosure channels. Investors should only have reasonable trusts in legal disclosure information. PRC Securities Law stipulates that subjects with active and passive disclosure obligation are restricted to certain people which possess influence on the market. But it is worth reviewing that the CSRC wrongly expand the scope to general people in rules formulation and case enforcement. We should impose false information liabilities only on particular subjects with market influence and on factual information with materiality,so as to be in conformity with the rationale of the Securities Law and the misrepresentation liability of subjects with statutory disclosure obligations. Only in this way can it conforms to the original intention of the Securities Law,and also matches the legal information disclosure subject in the false information liability system. Otherwise,it means that the presumed investors can also generate reasonable trust in the false statements made by ordinary subjects and bring a hindrance for the positive construction of securities market information. To better regulate false securities information,we should rely on social comprehensive governance including highlighting the authority of statutory disclosure channels and enhancing investor education,rather than stress on public liabilities.