| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 管理學院科技法律學程 === 103 === As the economic crime of corporate corruption emerged, including draining funds and misappropriating company assets ,the ”special breach of trustfulness in securities “of Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of Article 171 of the ROC Securities and Exchange Act was added and promulgated on 28 April ,2004 to maintain the order of economic , finance and business activity , while protecting the widespread investors.
In the recent criminal judgments, some courts hold that the ” special breach of trustfulness in securities” should be clearly distinguished from the “non-arm’s length transaction” of Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of Article 171 of the Securities and Exchange Act, for the reason that the restriction of the Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of Article 171 specification range was limited to the real transaction , with Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of Article 171 is limited to wash sales. Also some courts hold that if the transaction with the appearance of trading activity was virtually a harmful trading, and apparently was different from the general trading should be regulated by the “non-arm’s length transaction” “.It is still pending that can we apply the type of transaction to the judgments of the “non-arm’s length transaction” and the ”special breach of trustfulness in securities “.
This article is aimed to analysis the constitution, the legal interest, the legislative purposes and the penalties concurrence of the non-arm’s length transaction and the special breach of trustfulness in Securities, and to investigate the controversy between the theories and the criminal cases to try to propose the recommendations to settle the legal dispute.
|
|---|
