内幕交易民事赔偿制度之审思

Reflection on the Civil Compensation System of Insider Trading

随着证券虚假陈述民事赔偿制度改革成效渐次显现,在立体追责的政策导向下,内幕交易民事责任的制度构建似乎势在必行。但基于内幕交易的特殊行为构造,其民事责任面临理论与实践的双重困境。现有诸多学说既难以令人信服地解释因果关系,也无法精准识别所谓的适格原告。立法进程上曾有细化赔偿规则的激进尝试,但因其规范逻辑、功能定位等方面的诸多争议而失败。相关司法实践案例极为稀少,且多以原告败诉、撤诉告终,仅有的一起原告胜诉案件,其法理逻辑也多有可议之处。在我国对内幕交易实施惩罚性赔偿可能导致责任过苛,也无助于提升惩处概率;内幕交易对投资者的损害具有整体性和抽象性,比较法上并无强化民事追责的趋向。其民事赔偿制度的先天不足亦难以在传统私法责任框架下通过规则修补而获得“新生”。立足我国实际,本土化构建以证券公共执法促进投资者“私利”实现的公共补偿制度或是高效填补内幕交易损害、增强投资者信心的更优方案。

Since the improvements in civil compensation for securities false statements are gradually evident,the construction of civil liability for insider trading seems to be imperative under the goal of regulating unlawful acts stereoscopically.However,civil liability for insider trading faces a dilemma in both theory and practice.Existing theories fail to explain causation.convincingly and to identify precisely the so-called proper plaintiffs.In the legislative process,there have been radical attempts to refine compensation rules,but actually failed.Judicial cases are extremely rare and generally end up with the plaintiff losing or withdrawing the case.The legal logic of the sole plaintiff-winning case also remains debatable.Implementing punitive damages for insider trading in China may lead to excessive liability and does not help to increase the probability of punishment.The damage caused to investors by insider trading is holistic and abstract.From the view of comparative law,there is also no tendency to strengthen civil liability.The civil compensation system for insider trading is congenitally deficient,as a result of which,it may not be“reborn”through rule repair within the traditional framework of private law liability.Based on the actual situation in our country,localization of the public compensation system led by administrative agencies may be a better solution.