【作者】 张丽娟；

【导师】 李洁；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 刑法学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪是指证券、期货交易内幕信息的知情人员或非法获取证券、期货交易内幕信息的人员，在涉及证券的发行，证券、期货交易或其它对证券、期货的价格有重大影响的信息尚未公开时，买入或者卖出该证券，或者从事与该内幕信息有关的期货交易，或者泄露该信息，情节严重的行为。本文分三个部分，分别对内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪的构成特征、司法认定以及立法缺陷和完善进行研究。第一部分对内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪的构成特征进行了分析研究。内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪的客体是复杂客体，该罪不仅侵犯了证券市场的管理秩序，而且也侵犯了其他投资者的合法权益。本罪的客观方面是内幕交易、泄露内幕信息行为。表现为两种行为:一是在涉及证券的发行，证券交易或者其它对证券、期货交易价格有重大影响的信息尚未公开时，买入或者卖出该证券，或者从事与该内幕信息有关的期货交易行为。二是泄露内幕信息、使不应知悉信息的人知悉该信息，构成本罪还必须具备“情节严重”这一条件，利用内幕信息进行证券、期货交易，只有达到“情节严重”时才构成犯罪。本罪的主体是特殊主体。某个犯罪的主体是一般主体，还是特殊主体，关键是看刑法对这一犯罪的主体有无专门的规定，如果刑法分则中有专门规定，则这一犯罪的主体就应属于特殊主体，反之，则属于一般主体。非法获取内幕信息的人员也可以作为内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪所要求的特殊主体，是不违背权利义务一致性原则的,因为非法获取内幕信息的人员，虽然没有知情人的特定身份，但是他们一旦获得了内幕信息，可以说他已享受了原只能由有特定身份者才能享受的利益，或者说事实上已经享受了权利，让其承担相<WP=46>应的义务也是理所当然的。从这个意义上讲，他已变成了和有特定身份的知情人一样的特殊主体。本罪的主观方面是故意。对于本罪的主观方面是故意还是过失，关键还是要分析刑法的规定和理解刑事立法的原意。由于证券犯罪是一种新型的刑事犯罪，只有达到严重的程度才可能构成犯罪。从这一立法原意上分析，我国刑法中惩罚的内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪只应该是故意而不应该包括过失。“过失犯罪，法律有规定的才负刑事责任”。本罪的主观方面只能是故意,即行为人明知自己掌管或非法获取的信息属于内幕信息，也明知自己的交易行为利用了内幕信息，或者泄露了该内幕信息。在本罪的主观方面中，还有一个争议问题即对象认识错误的处理。如果行为人主观上确实存在对象认识错误的情况，一般不应该构成本罪。第二部分对内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪的司法认定进行研究。认定本罪要注意区分罪与非罪的界限。要科学地把握内幕交易行为的过程：其一，存在着交易行为；其二，该交易行为系内幕人员或非内幕人员所为；其三，该交易行为系内幕人员或非内幕人员利用内幕信息而进行的。要正确划分正当的交易行为与内幕交易行为。严格区分泄露内幕信息行为与证券预测、分析行为。深入研究了一罪与数罪的界限。根据刑法关于选择性罪名的理论，如果行为人只进行内幕交易，并未泄露内幕信息，定内幕交易罪；如果行为人只泄露内幕信息，并未进行内幕交易，定泄露内幕信息罪；如果行为人既泄露内幕信息，又进行内幕交易，不能实行数罪并罚，只能定内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪。对于构成数罪的，应予以并罚，该依照牵连犯择一重罪从重处罚的，则应以其中的重罪从重处罚。强调内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪与故意、过失泄露国家秘密罪的界限：主体范围不完全相同;主观罪过形式不同;客观方面的表现形式不同;犯罪客体不同;犯罪对象不同。 <WP=47>第三部分分析了内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪的立法缺陷和完善。内幕交易和泄露内幕信息行为不应规定在同一个含有选择性罪名的条文里，而应该分别规定在两个条文里。本条实际规定了两种犯罪行为，由于这两种行为之间不具有关联性，故不宜放在同一条文里。刑事责任上，应区分内幕人员与非内幕人员。内幕人员实施的内幕交易行为，或者泄幕内幕信息行为，应是刑法调控的重点，是刑法打击锋芒主要指向所在。最后指出要想有效地遏制内幕交易、泄露内幕信息犯罪，必须重视防范。进一步完善证券法律体系，严格执行自律性的各项管理制度，严格执法;及时公开内幕信息,有效地遏制内幕交易行为;重视对内幕交易的现场监视并及时展开调查;重新界定中国证券监管机构的职权范围。更多还原

【Abstract】 Inside exchange and divulgence of the inside information crime refers to the serious action that the insiders who know the stocks and futures inside information or the people who get such information illegally buy or sell the related stocks or futures before the information which is about stock issue or stock and futures deal is made public or before other important information which will influence the price of stocks or futures is made public.There are altogether three parts in this paper: the study of the constructional features of inside exchange and divulgence crime; the study of its judicial confirmation; the study of the legislative defects and perfections.In the first part I analyze and study the constructional features of inside exchange and divulgence crime. The object of the inside exchange and divulgence crime is a complex one. This crime makes the stock and futures exchange management disordered and infringes other investors’ legal rights and interests. The objective aspect of this crime is the deed of inside exchange and divulgence. There are two kinds of deeds: one is the action that before the information which is about stock issue and stock and futures deal or will influence the stock and futures’ price is made public, they buy or sell this stock or do the related stock exchange; the other is divulgence of the inside information. They inform those who shouldn’t know it. The condition that it must be “serious circumstance” is quite necessary when we judge such crime. Only when it is “serious circumstance” can the deed of dealing stock and futures exchange with the related inside information be judged to be a crime. The subject of this crime is a special one. Whether the subject of some crime is a common one or a special one is determined by the fact whether there are some special rules in the criminal laws about such criminal subject. If there are such special rules, it must be a special subject; and vice versa. The people who get the inside information illegally can be also judged as a special subject, which is not against the concerted principle of rights and obligation. Because these people are not insiders, but once they get the inside information, they have taken advantages which could be only taken by the insiders; or we may say they have enjoy the rights, so it is quite natural that they should take the corresponding obligation. From this sense they have become special subjects as the insiders. The subjective aspect of this crime is the deliberation. To judge whether the criminal subject does it on purpose or <WP=49>not, the key point is we need to analyze the criminal laws and understand the original purpose of the criminal legislation. Because the crime in stocks is a new type of crime, only when the circumstance is very serious can the actor be judged to be guilty. Analyzing from this sense, the inside exchange and divulgence crime mentioned in the criminal laws only refers to the deliberate action and negligence is not included here. “ The criminal of the unpremeditated crime should take criminal responsibility on condition that it has been stipulated in the laws.” The only possibility is that the subject of this crime does it purposely. Namely actor knows it quite well that the information he knows or gets is the inside information and that he has made use of this inside information or has divulged it. This kind of deliberation is usually a direct one in the practice. Moreover, this deliberation is done for the purpose of getting profits or reducing the loss. In the aspect of the subject, another disputed issue is how to deal with the fact that the actor divulges the wrong information. If the actor does divulge the wrong information, usually he won’t be judged to be guilty.The second part is about the study of the judicial confirmation of inside exchange and divulgence crime. The key point in judging this crime lies in the bound of being guilty and not guilty. We should know the process of inside exchange clearly and scientifically. Firstly, exchange did happen; secondly,更多还原