【作者】 杨硕；

【导师】 傅穹；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 民商法学， 2017， 博士

【摘要】 本文以美国《JOBS法案》和《众筹条例》的法律体系为参考对象,从公募和私募两条路径剖析股权众筹规则的结构和功能,通过综合运用比较和规范分析方法,探寻二者差异的本质根源,总结我国股权众筹研究及监管规则设计偏差,从市场现状和立法需求角度出发,提出从现有二分法到公募股权众筹、O2O(Online to Offline)型公募股权众筹以及私募股权众筹三分法的改革方案和完善对策。本文除绪论和结论外,共分五章:第一章“股权众筹的基本原理”。本章首先对众筹的概念、分类及基本原理进行解读。股权众筹源自于众包和奖励型众筹,由于所筹内容为股权,故又具有证券发行的特殊属性。其次,分析“互联网+”时代股权众筹立法的基础及必要性。互联网技术发展已经对我国传统金融垄断形成挑战,小企业融资和中产阶级投资的双重需求催生了股权众筹这一新型融资模式,为应对中国式“野蛮生长”的互联网金融市场态势,监管政策明确将股权众筹作为新五板市场,以实现普惠金融发展目标。第二章“公募与私募股权众筹的二分法模式”。本章首先对《JOBS法案》中公募股权众筹(《JOBS法案》第三章)和私募股权众筹(《JOBS法案》第二章)的二分法模式进行解读,此种分类方法是我国监管政策的官方态度,也是本文展开后续论证的逻辑起点。其次,两种模式在解决信息不对称和代理成本方面具有相同的内在逻辑,也因各自面临的核心困境不同,衍生出两套相似但有区别的规则体系。公募股权众筹的核心困境在于解决投资者非理性决策行为,由于该市场中投资者成熟度较低,导致传统信息披露制度无法发挥原本价值功能,故而在制度设计中加入群体智慧理论思维,通过多元化主体构成来平衡个体认知的局限性,形成对发行人较为客观、真实的评价结果,以此解决信息不对称问题。私募股权众筹的本质是通过网络突破了传统天使/风险投资的地理限制因素,在降低运营成本的同时吸引更多投资者,因此私募股权众筹基本沿用传统私募发行规则体系,通过修正部分规则以适应互联网环境需求。本章试图表达这样一个观点:两类股权众筹各自的规则体系是内在逻辑需求的外化,具有专属性特点,不可将其作为股权众筹的通用制度笼统而论。第三章“公募股权众筹规则的分析与功能解释”。公募股权众筹在国内尚处于理论探讨阶段尚无立法资料可供参考,故本章首先全面梳理了《JOBS法案》第三章以及《众筹条例》的豁免规则、发行规则、中介规则、集资门户额外规则以及其他规定五个方面的内容,并阐释美国证券交易委员会对部分规则进行修正调整的理由。其次,进一步讨论学界目前争议较大的信息披露制度和群体智慧理论两个问题。在信息披露制度方面,囿于公募股权众筹市场的特殊性,导致信息披露制度陷入难以破解的逻辑悖论,这在徒增发行成本的同时也无法避免其变为柠檬市场,因此应合理控制信息披露成本,回归其反欺诈的价值功能,将群体智慧作为信息披露的配套制度,共同解决信息不对称问题。但群体智慧可能走向其反面,即,羊群行为和信息瀑布,为确保群体智慧功能实现,立法增设交流渠道制度对交流信息进行统一监管,以控制发行过程中的恶意欺诈。第四章“私募股权众筹规则的分析与功能解释”。中国证券业协会公布的《私募股权众筹融资管理办法(试行)(征求意见稿)》旨在规范我国私募股权众筹发展,但无论是从逻辑体系亦或是具体规则方面都未能体现出美国《JOBS法案》对美国私募发行制度调整的精髓。本章梳理了美国私募发行的制度及原理,在对比新旧规则差异的基础上,进一步解释此次公开宣传和合格投资者制度调整的功能作用。解除公开宣传限制实现了传统私募发行的互联网延伸,这也同时导致自然人合格投资者范围的变化,沿用现有资产标准认定合格投资者时,需要在资产证明、检验方法方面进行适当调整。同时这一变化更加突显出现行合格投资者的制度弊端,相比于修改合格投资者认定标准,利用大数据解决信用中介的信誉资本困局似乎是更为有效的应对措施。第五章“我国股权众筹立法框架与规则构建”。首先,本章基于前文的论述基础,提出适合我国的三分法立法框架:公募股权众筹、O2O(Online to Offline)型公募股权众筹以及私募股权众筹。其中,公募股权众筹和私募股权众筹可以依循《JOBS法案》的逻辑进行规制,部分规则需要进行本土化修正。而O2O型公募股权众筹则是效仿英国AIM经验,以回应我国线上线下融合创新发展政策的要求。其次,在肯定“飞度”诉“诺米多”案成功审判经验基础上,进一步分析《证券法》修改后可能出现的法律适用和裁判逻辑变化,以及缺少证券集团诉讼制度的应对方法。最后,本章认为应修正证券举报人制度来回应互联网时代资本市场监管的特殊需求。更多还原

【Abstract】 By referring to the legal systems of the JOBS Act and the Final Rule of Crowdfunding of America,this dissertation analyzes the structure and function of crowdfunding rules from the perspectives of retail crowdfunding and accredited crowdfunding respectively,probes into the roots of the differences between them by comprehensive and normative analytic methods and summarizes the deviation of researches and supervisory regulations for equity crowdfunding.In the end,this dissertation,based on the status quo of market and legislative needs,puts forward the countermeasures and reform programs from the current dichotomy to the trichotomy of retail crowdfunding,retail crowdfunding of O2O(Online to Offline)type and accredited crowdfunding.Apart from the introduction and conclusion,this dissertation is divided into five chapters:The first chapter introduces the basic principles of equity crowdfunding.It firstly analyzes the concept,classification and basic principles of crowdfunding.Equity crowdfunding derived from crowdsourcing and incentive crowdfunding and develops with the distinctive nature of issuance of securities as the subject of funding is equity.Secondly,this paper explores the legislative foundation and necessity of equity crowdfunding in the “Internet+” era.The development of Internet technology has posed a challenge to the traditional financial monopoly and the dual demands from smallbusiness financing and the investment of the middle class have catalyzed the the new financing mode of equity crowdfunding.In response to the “Savage Growth” of Chinese Internet financial market,the regulatory policy explicitly positions equity crowdsourcing as a new board market to reach the objective of inclusive finance.The second chapter presents the dichotomy mode of retail crowdfunding and accredited crowdfunding.This chapter starts with the analysis of the dichotomy mode of the retail crowdfunding(included in the third chapter of JOBS Act)and the accredited crowdfunding(included in the second chapter of JOBS Act)and such classification method is officially accepted by Chinese regulatory policy and it is the logic basis for the subsequent argumentation.Secondly,the two modes have the same inherent logic in dealing with information asymmetry and agency cost.Confined by their respective core predicaments,they spin off two similar rule systems yet with their own differences.The core predicament of retail crowdfunding lies in handling the behavior of irrational decision making by investors.Investors in the market are inexperienced,leading to the scenario where the traditional disclosure system fails to bring out its original value.Hence,the theoretical thinking of crowd wisdom builds on the system design.The limitation of individual cognition is balanced by the diversified composition of investors,which then achieves more objective and true assessment results for the issuers and hereby manage information asymmetry.The nature of accredited crowdfunding lies in that it reaches beyond the geographic limitations and along with cost reduction,it is able to access more potential investors through Internet.Thus it can be seen that accredited crowdfunding basically observes the issuance system of traditional retail crowdfunding,which has been partially amended to adapt to the Internet environment.This chapter attempts to clarify this point: the systems where the two categories of crowdfunding are separately applied are the externalization of the necessity of their inherent logic demands with their own specific characteristics,which shall not be deemed as the universal system for equity crowdfunding without distinction.The third chapter is on the analysis and functional explanation of the rules for retail crowdfunding.In China,retail crowdfunding is still in the stage of theoretical research without legislation for reference.Therefore,this chapter firstly combs through the third chapter of the JOBS Act and the content of Crowdfunding Exemption,Issuer Requirements,Intermediary Requirements,Additional Funding Portal Requirements,and Miscellaneous Provisions included in the Final Rule of Crowdfunding and illustrates the reasons why the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission adjusted some rules included.Secondly,this chapter further studies the mandatory disclosure and the wisdom of crowd,which are the two most controversial issues in the academia.On mandatory disclosure,subject to the specialty of the market for retail crowdfunding,the mandatory disclosure system falls into a knotty logical paradox,which consequently not only increases the issuance cost,but also fails to avoid turning into the lemon market.Therefore,the cost of information disclosure should be properly controlled so that it can fulfill its due value in countering frauds and draw on the wisdom of crowd to support the mandatory disclosure system and jointly tackle information asymmetry.Nevertheless,the wisdom of crowd may turn into Herding Effects or Information Cascades,which is to the contrary of itself.In this regard,communication channels should be supplemented to legislation in order to supervise the information in communication in a unified manner and keep malicious frauds during issuance in check.The fourth chapter is on the analysis and functional explanation of the rules for accredited crowdfunding.The Financing Regulation of Accredited Crowdfunding(trial implementation)(Proposed Rule)published by SEC aims to regulate the development of accredited crowdfunding in China.However,this Regulation does not capture the purport of the amendment of American accredited crowdfunding system provided by the JOBS Act,neither from the perspective of the logical system nor from the angle of the detailed rules.This chapter covers the regulations and principles of securities private placements in America and based on the regulation comparison between the old and the new,it further expounds the purpose of institutional adjustment of the general advertising and accredited investors.Relieving the restrictions on general advertising extends the traditional private placement to the Internet,which concurrently leads to the change of the scope of accredited investors of natural persons.When the standard of existing assets is observed in determining accredited investors,proper adjustments needs to be made in terms of asset certification and method of inspection.Meanwhile,such variation highlights the drawbacks of the current system of accredited investors.Compared with revising the criterion for determining accredited investors,it seems that making use of big data to free from the paradox of reputational capital of credit intermediaries is a more effective countermeasure.The fifth chapter is on the legislative framework and regulation establishment for the equity crowdfunding in China.First and foremost,on the basis of the aforementioned arguments,this chapter puts forward the trichotomy method for the legislative framework in China: retail crowdfunding,retail crowdfunding of O2O(Online to Offline)type and accredited crowdfunding,among which retail crowdfunding and accredited crowdfunding can be regulated pursuant to the logic of the JOBS Act and some rules are subject to localization and the retail crowdfunding of O2O(Online to Offline)type draws on the experience of AIM of U.K.in response to the policy requirements of innovative integration from online to offline transactions.In the second place,based on the successful trial experience of the prosecution of Beijing Fit Network Technology Co.,LTD against Beijing Nuomiduo Catering Management Co.,LTD,this chapter further explores the variation of the application of law and the logic of judgment which may appear after the revision of the Securities Law(which may be amended in the near future)and the solution to the deficiency of litigation system for securities groups.In the end,it is proposed in this chapter that the whistleblower incentive mechanism should be revised in response to the specific regulatory requirements of the capital market in the Internet era.更多还原