论违反融资融券交易规则的侵权责任——以规范目的论为视角
|
摘要
保护投资者的合法权益是融资融券交易规则的应有之意,不容忽视。美国司法实践表明,以规范目的论为视角,可以通过转介条款将违反融资融券交易规则的行为纳入到侵权法体系中,从而实现对投资者利益的保护。需要注意的是,违反融资融券交易规则的侵权责任并非没有界限。当投资者具有故意引诱行为时,加害人可以投资者存在与有过失为由要求减轻或免除侵权责任。经由司法实践发展而来的违反融资融券交易规则的侵权责任,有效地弥补了行政管制的不足,对于维护证券市场秩序具有重要价值。我国应当首先明确融资融券交易规则具有保护投资者权益的规范目的,并以此为基础进行法律解释,逐渐构建《侵权责任法》体系内违反融资融券交易规则的侵权责任。
The rules of financing and securities lending shall protect the legitimate rights and interests of investors,which should not be neglected. Judicial practice in the United States demonstrates that,from the perspective of normative teleology,the violation of the rules of financing and securities lending can be incorporated into the tort law system through referral clauses to protect the interests of investors. However,it should be noted that the tort liability of violating the rules of financing and securities lending is not without boundaries. When an investor conducts deliberate temptation,the infringer may claim it as a defense to mitigate or exempt tort liability. Therefore,the tort liability developed in the violation of the rules of financing and securities lending is significant for maintaining the order of the securities market and effectively making up for the deficiency of administrative control. China should first clarify the normative purpose of protecting the interests of investors in the rules of financing and securities lending,and establish the tort liability of disobeying financing and securities lending rules through legal interpretation within the scope of Tort Liability Law.
The rules of financing and securities lending shall protect the legitimate rights and interests of investors,which should not be neglected. Judicial practice in the United States demonstrates that,from the perspective of normative teleology,the violation of the rules of financing and securities lending can be incorporated into the tort law system through referral clauses to protect the interests of investors. However,it should be noted that the tort liability of violating the rules of financing and securities lending is not without boundaries. When an investor conducts deliberate temptation,the infringer may claim it as a defense to mitigate or exempt tort liability. Therefore,the tort liability developed in the violation of the rules of financing and securities lending is significant for maintaining the order of the securities market and effectively making up for the deficiency of administrative control. China should first clarify the normative purpose of protecting the interests of investors in the rules of financing and securities lending,and establish the tort liability of disobeying financing and securities lending rules through legal interpretation within the scope of Tort Liability Law.
引文
[1]郭明瑞.侵权责任构成中因果关系理论的反思[J].甘肃政法学院学报,2013(4):2-4.
[2]王泽鉴.损害赔偿[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2017:85.
[3]顾祝轩.民法概念史·债权[M].北京:法律出版社,2016:237.
[4]迪特尔·梅迪库斯.请求权基础[M].陈卫佐,田士永,等,译.北京:法律出版社,2012:170.
[5]焦艳玲.论管制规范对侵权责任的影响[J].河北法学,2017(4):63.
[6]Forell C.Statutes and Torts:Comparing the United States to Australia,Canada,and England[J].Willamette Law Review,2000,36(4):866-868.
[7]Climan R.E.Civil Liability Under the Credit-Regulation Provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934[J].Cornell Law Review,1977-78,63(2):210-213.
[8]张付标,李玫.论证券投资者适当性的法律性质[J].法学,2013(10):82.
[9]王小丽.英美及亚太国家与地区融资融券业务监管制度分析[J].南方金融,2010(3):40-42.
[10]苏永钦.寻找新民法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2012:257-258.
[11]陈聪富.因果关系与损害赔偿[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006:25.
[12]郑佳宁.操纵证券市场行为法律认定标准的实证研究与再审视[J].政法论丛,2016(5):106.
[13]Simons K.W.Victim Fault and Victim Strict Responsibility in Anglo-American Tort Law[J].Journal of Tort Law,2015,8(1-2):33.
[14]杨仁寿.法学方法论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2013:173.
[15]朱虎.规制性规范、侵权法和转介条款[J].中共浙江省委党校学报,2014(3):121.
(1)参见:四川省出台的《四川省地方金融监督管理条例》(2019);新疆维吾尔自治区出台的《关于加强金融服务民营企业的实施意见》(2019);陕西省出台《关于完善国有金融资本管理的实施意见》(2019).
(2)参见:向逢春.论让与担保在我国实施的社会基础-以市场经济活动中进口押汇和融资融券关系为范例[J].政治与法律,2013(3):103;李艳.融资融券法律机制研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2011:172;楼建波.化解我国融资融券交易担保困境的路径选择[J].法学,2008(11):84-97;高翔.信用交易监管:国际比较及借鉴[J].证券市场导报,2007(9):43-49.
(3)参见:Schmitz v.Canadian Pac.Ry.Co.,454 F.3d 678(2006).
(4)参见:北京市第三中级人民法院(2014)三中民再终字第09077号民事判决书;上海市浦东新区人民法院(2012)浦民一(民)初字第37929号民事判决书;山东省沂源县人民法院(2015)源民初字第1037号民事判决书。
(1)参见:The Report of House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,REPORT ON H.R.9323,H.R.REP.No.1383,73d Cong.,2d Sess.8(1934).
(2)参见:Bowman v.Hartig,334 F.Supp.1323(1971);Moscarelli v.Stamm,288 F.Supp.453(1968).
(1)参见:Jennings v.Boenning&Co.,388 F.Supp.1294(1975).
(2)参见:Warshow v.H.Hentz&Co.,199 F.Supp.581(1961).
(1)规则T主要规范证券公司关于信用交易的经纪业务;规则U主要规范银行在融资融券中的地位、作用和行为;规则G主要规范银行、证券公司以外的金融机构的融资融券交易;规则X主要规范信用交易中借贷双方的权利与义务。(参见:Gareis,R.J.,Jakubik J.W.The United States Securities Credit Regulations:How they Affect Foreign Borrowers and Foreign Lenders in Acquistions of U.S.Companies[J].Journal of Comparative Corporate Law and Securities Regulation,1982,4(3):292-293.)
(2)参见:Restatement(Second)of Torts§286(1965).
(1)参见:Remar v.Clayton Sec.Corp.,81 F.Supp.1014(1949).
(2)参见:Robbins v.Banner Industries,Inc.285 F.Supp.758(1966).
(3)参见:Levine v.J.N.Russell&Co.,318 F.Supp.1162(1969).
(4)参见:Glickman v.Schweickart&Co.,242 F.Supp.670(1965).
(1)英美法上的与有过失制度起源于19世纪的判例。起初,与有过失属于完全抗辩,被告只要指出原告对损害的发生存在与有过失,那么则免去其损害赔偿责任。之后,经由判例法的发展,与有过失演变为部分抗辩,被告在证明原告存在与有过失时,被告的损害赔偿责任将会相应减少。(参见:White G.The Emergence and Doctrinal Development of Tort Law,1870-1930[J].University of St.Thomas Law Journal,2014,11(3):492.)
(1)参见:Gordon v.duP ont Glore Forgan Inc.,487 F.2d 1260(1973).
(2)参见:Moscarelli v.Stamm,288 F.Supp.453(1968).
(3)参见:Pearlstein v.Scudder&German,429 F.2d 1136(1970);Spoon v.Walston&Co.,345 F.Supp.518(1972),aff’d,478 F.2d246(1973).
(4)参见:中国证监会.中国证监会通报2014年第四季度证券公司融资类业务现场检查情况[EB/OL].[2019-5-12].http://www.csrc.gov.cn/pub/newsite/zjhxwfb/xwdd/201501/t20150116_266711.html.
(1)行为人因过错侵害他人民事权益,应当承担侵权责任。(参见:《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第6条第1款规定:“行为人因过错侵害他人民事权益,应当承担侵权责任。”)
[2]王泽鉴.损害赔偿[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2017:85.
[3]顾祝轩.民法概念史·债权[M].北京:法律出版社,2016:237.
[4]迪特尔·梅迪库斯.请求权基础[M].陈卫佐,田士永,等,译.北京:法律出版社,2012:170.
[5]焦艳玲.论管制规范对侵权责任的影响[J].河北法学,2017(4):63.
[6]Forell C.Statutes and Torts:Comparing the United States to Australia,Canada,and England[J].Willamette Law Review,2000,36(4):866-868.
[7]Climan R.E.Civil Liability Under the Credit-Regulation Provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934[J].Cornell Law Review,1977-78,63(2):210-213.
[8]张付标,李玫.论证券投资者适当性的法律性质[J].法学,2013(10):82.
[9]王小丽.英美及亚太国家与地区融资融券业务监管制度分析[J].南方金融,2010(3):40-42.
[10]苏永钦.寻找新民法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2012:257-258.
[11]陈聪富.因果关系与损害赔偿[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006:25.
[12]郑佳宁.操纵证券市场行为法律认定标准的实证研究与再审视[J].政法论丛,2016(5):106.
[13]Simons K.W.Victim Fault and Victim Strict Responsibility in Anglo-American Tort Law[J].Journal of Tort Law,2015,8(1-2):33.
[14]杨仁寿.法学方法论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2013:173.
[15]朱虎.规制性规范、侵权法和转介条款[J].中共浙江省委党校学报,2014(3):121.
(1)参见:四川省出台的《四川省地方金融监督管理条例》(2019);新疆维吾尔自治区出台的《关于加强金融服务民营企业的实施意见》(2019);陕西省出台《关于完善国有金融资本管理的实施意见》(2019).
(2)参见:向逢春.论让与担保在我国实施的社会基础-以市场经济活动中进口押汇和融资融券关系为范例[J].政治与法律,2013(3):103;李艳.融资融券法律机制研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2011:172;楼建波.化解我国融资融券交易担保困境的路径选择[J].法学,2008(11):84-97;高翔.信用交易监管:国际比较及借鉴[J].证券市场导报,2007(9):43-49.
(3)参见:Schmitz v.Canadian Pac.Ry.Co.,454 F.3d 678(2006).
(4)参见:北京市第三中级人民法院(2014)三中民再终字第09077号民事判决书;上海市浦东新区人民法院(2012)浦民一(民)初字第37929号民事判决书;山东省沂源县人民法院(2015)源民初字第1037号民事判决书。
(1)参见:The Report of House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,REPORT ON H.R.9323,H.R.REP.No.1383,73d Cong.,2d Sess.8(1934).
(2)参见:Bowman v.Hartig,334 F.Supp.1323(1971);Moscarelli v.Stamm,288 F.Supp.453(1968).
(1)参见:Jennings v.Boenning&Co.,388 F.Supp.1294(1975).
(2)参见:Warshow v.H.Hentz&Co.,199 F.Supp.581(1961).
(1)规则T主要规范证券公司关于信用交易的经纪业务;规则U主要规范银行在融资融券中的地位、作用和行为;规则G主要规范银行、证券公司以外的金融机构的融资融券交易;规则X主要规范信用交易中借贷双方的权利与义务。(参见:Gareis,R.J.,Jakubik J.W.The United States Securities Credit Regulations:How they Affect Foreign Borrowers and Foreign Lenders in Acquistions of U.S.Companies[J].Journal of Comparative Corporate Law and Securities Regulation,1982,4(3):292-293.)
(2)参见:Restatement(Second)of Torts§286(1965).
(1)参见:Remar v.Clayton Sec.Corp.,81 F.Supp.1014(1949).
(2)参见:Robbins v.Banner Industries,Inc.285 F.Supp.758(1966).
(3)参见:Levine v.J.N.Russell&Co.,318 F.Supp.1162(1969).
(4)参见:Glickman v.Schweickart&Co.,242 F.Supp.670(1965).
(1)英美法上的与有过失制度起源于19世纪的判例。起初,与有过失属于完全抗辩,被告只要指出原告对损害的发生存在与有过失,那么则免去其损害赔偿责任。之后,经由判例法的发展,与有过失演变为部分抗辩,被告在证明原告存在与有过失时,被告的损害赔偿责任将会相应减少。(参见:White G.The Emergence and Doctrinal Development of Tort Law,1870-1930[J].University of St.Thomas Law Journal,2014,11(3):492.)
(1)参见:Gordon v.duP ont Glore Forgan Inc.,487 F.2d 1260(1973).
(2)参见:Moscarelli v.Stamm,288 F.Supp.453(1968).
(3)参见:Pearlstein v.Scudder&German,429 F.2d 1136(1970);Spoon v.Walston&Co.,345 F.Supp.518(1972),aff’d,478 F.2d246(1973).
(4)参见:中国证监会.中国证监会通报2014年第四季度证券公司融资类业务现场检查情况[EB/OL].[2019-5-12].http://www.csrc.gov.cn/pub/newsite/zjhxwfb/xwdd/201501/t20150116_266711.html.
(1)行为人因过错侵害他人民事权益,应当承担侵权责任。(参见:《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第6条第1款规定:“行为人因过错侵害他人民事权益,应当承担侵权责任。”)
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |