論美國證券詐欺之主觀意圖要件

戴銘昇

doi:10.6416/SLR.200710.0141

山西大学，您好！

感谢采购，人社期刊库｜人社论文库，期间：2025/01/01~2025/12/31

感谢试用，科学期刊库｜科学论文库，期间：2024/10/20~2025/01/20

浏览高级检索

关闭
检索检索高级检索出版物检索
浏览期刊主题浏览核心期刊浏览期刊拼音浏览

关闭

查询符号(半角)	查询符号意义说明
空格	表示为「AND」两个查询词之交集
双引号 ( " " )	片语以双引号标示开始及结束，而且只寻找出现顺序相同的字词，例： " image process "
?	表示一个字母切截，输入两个?表两个字母，依此类推，例：输入「Appl?」，查得结果应为appl e , appl y … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
*	表示不限字母切截，由0~n. 例：输入「appl*」，查得结果应为appl e , appl es , appl y , appl ied , appl ication … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
AND、OR、NOT	布尔逻辑组合关键字，用来扩大或缩小查询范围的技巧。 (1) AND ：缩小查询范围 (2) OR ：扩大查询范围(3) NOT：排除不相关的范围

DOI 是数位物件识别码（ D igital O bject I dentifier ）的简称，
为物件在网路上的唯一识别码，可用于永久连结并引用目标物件。

使用DOI作为永久连结

每个DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」便成为永久网址。
如以DOI号为 10.5297/ser.1201.002 的文献为例，此文献的永久连结便是： http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5297/ser.1201.002 。
日后不论出版单位如何更动此文献位置，永久连结所指向的位置皆会即时更新，不再错失重要的研究。

引用含有DOI的文献

有DOI的文献在引用时皆应同时引用DOI。若使用APA、Chicago以外未规范DOI的引用格式，可引用DOI永久连结。

DOI可强化引用精确性、增强学术圈连结，并给予使用者跨平台的良好使用经验，目前在全世界已有超过五千万个对象申请DOI。如想对DOI的使用与概念有进一步了解，请参考（）。

ACI:

数据来源：Academic Citation Index，简称ACI

台湾最大的引用文献资料库，目前收录台湾与港澳地区所出版的人文学、社会学领域学术期刊之书目资料与参考文献，总期刊量超过690种，每年定期公布收录期刊的影响指数(Impact Factor)等指标给大众，并提供专家学者与学术单位实用的计量与分析功能。

五年影响指数（5-Year Impact Factor）：某一期刊前五年所出版的文章在当年度的平均被引用次数。

公式：（前五年发表论文在统计年的被引用次数）÷（前五年论文产出论文总篇数）

例如：A期刊2017年之五年影响指数

(A期刊2012-2016年发表论文在2017年的被引总次数)/(A期刊2012-2016年发表的论文总数)

什么是预刊文章？

为提供读者最前线之学术资讯，于期刊文献获同意刊登后、纸本印制完成前，率先于网路线上发表之文章即为预刊文章。预刊文章尚未有卷期、页次及出版日期资讯，但可藉由DOI号识别。 DOI号是文献的数位身份证字号，不论预刊或正式出版皆不会改变，读者可点击DOI连结，或于DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」连结到文献目前最新版本。

如何引用预刊文章？

请使用预刊文章的线上发表日期及DOI号来引用该篇文献。

引用范例(视不同引文格式规范可能有所差异)：

作者姓名。文章篇名。期刊名称。 YYYY/MM/DD线上预先发表。

doi:DOI 号

来源数据

P141 - 174

社会科学 > 法律学

DOI： 10.6416/SLR

书目管理工具

相关连结

问题回报

全文下载

论美国证券诈欺之主观意图要件

On the Intent Requirement of U.S. Securities Fraud

戴铭昇(Mean-Sun Dai)

东吴法律学报； 19 卷 2 期 (2007 / 10 / 01) ， P141 - 174

繁体中文 DOI： 10.6416/SLR.200710.0141

1933年证券法； 1934年证券交易法； Section 10(b) ； Rule 10b-5 ； 1995年私人证券诉讼改革法； 1998年证券诉讼统一标准法；证券诈欺；故意；严重过失；重大过失；情况证据；双面标准说；动机及机会标准；强而有力的推论；着名的注12 ； Securities Act of 1933 ； Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ； Section 10(b) ； Rule 10b-5 ； Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 PSLRA ； Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ； securities fr

0 个人觉得这篇文章赞

摘要 │ 参考文献 (14) │ 被引用文献 (2) │ 国际计量

摘要〈TOP〉

并列摘要〈TOP〉

In order to regulate the issuing and trading market of the securities, the U.S. government promulgated Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The most important statutes in preventing the illegal act in securities market are Section 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, the so-called ”securities fraud provision.” The intent requirement of securities fraud was contentious. In order to resolve this issue, Federal Supreme Court in Hochfelder declared that this intent requirement is limited to scienter, not including negligence. As for the issue: Can recklessness also constitute the cienter? The famous note 12 said this issue was ”left open.” At that time, most courts recognized recklessness, it almost became a well-established judicial interpretation. But after the promulgation of Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, recklessness and its test became issues again. Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act was intended to repair this issue, subsequently published in 1998. But when this Act came into force, this issue was getting bitter. Finally, brought in ”circuit split.”In order to regulate the issuing and trading market of the securities, the U.S. government promulgated Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The most important statutes in preventing the illegal act in securities market are Section 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, the so-called ”securities fraud provision.” The intent requirement of securities fraud was contentious. In order to resolve this issue, Federal Supreme Court in Hochfelder declared that this intent requirement is limited to scienter, not including negligence. As for the issue: Can recklessness also constitute the scienter? The famous note 12 said this issue was ”left open.” At that time, most courts recognized recklessness, it almost became a well-established judicial interpretation. But after the promulgation of Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, recklessness and its test became issues again. Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act was intended to repair this issue, subsequently published in 1998. But when this Act came into force, this issue was getting bitter. Finally, brought in ”circuit split.”

参考文献 ( 14 ) 〈TOP〉

Andrew S. Gold(2004).Reassessing The Scope of Conduct Prohibited by Section 10(b) and The Elements of Rule 10b-5: Reflections on Securities Fraud and Secondary Actors.CATH. U.L. REV.,53,667.
Carl W. Mills(2005).Breach of Fiduciary Duty As Securities Fraud: Sec v. Chancellor Corp.FORDHAM J. CORP. & FIN. L.,10,439.
Charles F. Hart(2003).Interpreting The Heightened Pleading of The Scienter Requirement in Private Securities Fraud Litigation: The Tenth Circuit Takes The Middle Ground.DENV. U.L. REV.,80,577.
Daniel P. Collins(1988).Summary Judgment and Circumstantial Evidence.STAN. L. REV.,40,491.
DAVID L. RATNER(1988).SECURITIES REGULATION IN A NUTSHELL.West Publishing Co..

被引用文献 ( 2 ) 〈TOP〉

江俊彦(2013)。从法益理论检视证券诈欺罪的性质与要件─兼评高雄高分院100年度金上更（一）字第1号判决。法令月刊，64(9)，28-54。
(2013)。违法吸金案件刑事规范之研究－以银行法与证交法间之体系违反为中心。法学丛刊，58(2)，133-166。

国际计量

〈TOP〉

E-mail ：

文章公开取用时，将寄通知信至您填写的信箱地址