論證券交易法財務報告不實之責任—以重大性要件為中心

Abstract

證券市場採取公開原則之主要目的，乃在於透過資訊揭露制度，強制公司提供投資人決策所需資訊，令投資人得於公開、公平之環境下評估有價證券價值，進而為合理之投資決策。又若財務報告之編製有虛偽或隱匿之情事時，我國證券交易法於第20條第2項、第174條第1項第5款設有刑事責任，並於第20條之課以民事損害賠償之責。 依我國學界通說與多數實務見解，財報不實罪應具備「重大性」始得為刑法所處罰，而民事責任亦以「主要內容」為損害賠償之要件。對於重大性與主要內容之內涵，我國實務雖多援引美國TSC案與Basic案等指標性判決為其定義，惟其內涵似已與美國實務漸行漸遠。有甚者，我國於引進第99號幕僚會計公告後，以量性與質性指標為重大性操作之見解已蔚為實務主流。然而，我國實務之作法是否妥適，以及應如何選擇合適之量性與質性指標為個案之判斷標準，非無疑問。 職是之故，本文透過美國與我國之司法實務重大性研究，嘗試就重大性之定義、具體內涵與實務操作為分析。根據本文研究，我國實務係以各類法規命令或公報填充理性投資人之內涵，卻鮮少對後者為具體論證，導致我國之重大性實際等同於法規命令或會計研究基金會之公報；此外，我國實務過度著重於量性指標之操作，但凡違反量性指標者即觸犯財報不實罪，並導致量性指標似於個案中凌駕於質性指標，令質性指標附隨於量性指標之判斷，迥異於美國第99號幕僚會計公告之操作。綜上所述，本文藉由實務個案之分析為我國重大性概念之再建構，反思量性與質性指標，以及其上位概念理性投資人之適用論，並提出較富彈性、更契合財務重大性之判斷標準，期待解決實務判決長久以來之盲點。

The major reason why the modern stock market embraces the principle of full disclosure lies in the prospect that, by disclosing internal information enforcedly, investors will be able to assess the market value of the securities and make reasonable investment decisions under an transparent and fair environment. Article 20(2) and 20-1 of the Securities and Exchange Act impose civil and criminal liabilities on people who are obligated to prepare financial reports, when the reports are believed to contain misrepresentations or nondisclosures. It is, however, believed that only with the element of “Materiality” should misrepresentations or nondisclosures be punished. It is the same case with the “Essential Content” of a financial statement when it comes to the civil liability for damages. In order to define the concept of these elements, courts in Taiwan usually invoke the vital judgements such as TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. and Basic, Inc. v. Levinson as reference. However, the materiality concept in Taiwan has differed from that practiced in the U.S.A. What’s more, courts have invoked the Staff Accounting Bulletin: No.99, and the implementation of quantitative and qualitative factors has become prevalent in Taiwan. Nevertheless, it remains doubtful whether it is proper to practice the SAB No.99 directly, especially when it occurs to the selection of appropriate quantitative and qualitative factors. Thus, the thesis aims at comparing the definition of materiality between Taiwan and the U.S.A. and attempting to organize the specific meaning as well as the practical standards. According to my observation, the courts in Taiwan usually fulfill the concept of “Reasonable Investor” with a variety of regulations issued by the authorities concerned, but seldom examine the concept itself. This phenomenon results in the fact that materiality actually equals to regulations or bulletins. What’s more, most of the courts in Taiwan center on the quantitative factors, causing the unequal weight of qualitative factors. This result shows the difference of the application of SAB No.99 in Taiwan and the U.S.A. Hence, the thesis attempts to reconstruct the materiality concept and reflects on the applicable standards between the reasonable investor concept, quantitative factors and qualitative factors. The thesis also proposes a more flexible and workable framework that fits the financial materiality better in hope of resolving the long-standing blind spots in Taiwan.