[ 胡曉東 ]——(2003-6-2) / 已閱19973次
英國內(nèi)幕交易案例與制度分析
胡曉東*
摘 要：英國的股票交易歷史悠久，同時(shí)英國一直奉行對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)采取不干涉主義為主的策略。在股票交易的監(jiān)控也采取自律模式為主。其關(guān)于內(nèi)幕交易的法規(guī)及法律活動(dòng)有其特色，在對(duì)美國的證券監(jiān)管制度的分析日益多見時(shí)，對(duì)其作些分析有益于思考。
關(guān)鍵詞：英國 證券 股票 內(nèi)幕交易 案例 調(diào)查
引言
股票因股份公司及股份制度的誕生而產(chǎn)生，而股票的交易隨股票的產(chǎn)生漸次形成�！肮善钡某霈F(xiàn)，促使股票交易所產(chǎn)生。早在1611年，就有一些商人在荷蘭的阿姆斯特丹買賣海外貿(mào)易公司的股票，形成了股票交易所的雛形。1773年，在倫敦柴思胡同的約那森咖啡館正式成立了英國的第一個(gè)證券交易所，以后演變?yōu)閭惗刈C券交易所�！盵1](P.7)英國作為股票交易行為創(chuàng)始國之一，在股票交易方面有著悠久的歷史。但英國經(jīng)濟(jì)政策以亞當(dāng)·斯密的自由主義為根基來構(gòu)建，故而顯得相當(dāng)保守。政府對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)采取不干涉主義，在股票交易方面也如出一轍。所以盡管“倫敦證券交易所是世界上歷史最悠久的證券交易所�！� [1](P.478)；盡管“倫敦證券交易所曾為當(dāng)時(shí)英國經(jīng)濟(jì)的興旺立下汗馬功勞” [1](P.478)；當(dāng)保守的思維模式與時(shí)代碾進(jìn)的車輪不能共步以驅(qū)時(shí)，競爭力的漸失乃至成為相對(duì)后進(jìn)的市場就存在某種必然。改革就必然成為覺醒者們的確定之策�！皞惗刈C券交易所于1986年10月進(jìn)行了重大改革，……這些改革措施使英國證券市場發(fā)生了根本性的變化，鞏固了其在國際證券市場中的地位�！� [1](P.478)
背著歷史重負(fù)的行路者與肩無所載的奔者是存在不同的前進(jìn)方式。肩無所載因其無所負(fù)，故能輕盈快步，但卻會(huì)擔(dān)負(fù)較大風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。肩有所負(fù)雖步履難快，但卻較為堅(jiān)實(shí)。英國人的保守與妥協(xié)是其特質(zhì)，加之其歷史的背負(fù)，故其對(duì)內(nèi)幕交易的調(diào)控沒有美國人走的遠(yuǎn)。但正因?yàn)榇�，與中國其沉重的歷史背負(fù)相對(duì)應(yīng)，分析一下英國人的模式，也許對(duì)如何調(diào)控、規(guī)范中國的證券市場，尤其內(nèi)幕交易有所裨益。
案件述析
由于英國是判例法傳統(tǒng)國家，故而其制定法在被法官適用時(shí)，法官有相當(dāng)?shù)牟昧繖?quán)。而且法律、法規(guī)在英國真正地起到效力是在于被能夠形成判例的判決、裁決引用之后。為此，有必要對(duì)案例先進(jìn)行分析。
《英國公司法經(jīng)典案例》一書有多篇案例，其中有一篇就是與內(nèi)幕交易有關(guān)的案例：關(guān)于依據(jù)公司證券1985法案（內(nèi)幕交易）的詢問（Re an Inquiry under the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985）[2](P.298)。案例所述：財(cái)經(jīng)記者發(fā)表了兩篇文章，文章中述及有關(guān)政府部門的秘密決議的第一手資料。而調(diào)查人員（調(diào)查內(nèi)幕交易）基于同樣的資料，要求記者告知其資料的來源，而記者拒絕提供。為此，調(diào)查人員將事件訴至法庭，要求處記者以藐視法庭之責(zé)。上議院的審判人員對(duì)案件陳述了各自意見，然后依據(jù)多數(shù)意見認(rèn)為應(yīng)撤銷起訴。結(jié)果，上議院裁決記者必須回答調(diào)查人員的詢問，并對(duì)其處以罰金。
鑒于資料未對(duì)其他審判人員的意見作詳細(xì)表述，所以文章僅對(duì)審判人員（OLIVER）的意見作分析。通過OLIVER的審判陳詞，可以看到其分析脈絡(luò)：先就法律條文的實(shí)質(zhì)進(jìn)行殫精竭慮地剖析，尋求其法律的核心內(nèi)蘊(yùn)。然后再就具體案例中的情況作入木三分的研析。最后得出其所演繹、推敲的結(jié)論。從中也可以看出存在三段論的相似模式。
就法律條文實(shí)質(zhì)分析時(shí)，其先就藐視法庭罪法（1981）第10條能否直接適用到金融服務(wù)法（1986）第178條所表述的內(nèi)容上，做出闡釋。認(rèn)為盡管不能直接適用，但應(yīng)存在相似的規(guī)則相似運(yùn)用。（第三段第三句：無論如何我同意，盡管不能直接適用，第10條表現(xiàn)的一般性方針在這樣的參考中可以通過相類似的方式來適用。）并直指案件的實(shí)質(zhì)所在：被調(diào)查的信息對(duì)于防止犯罪是必要的（第三段第四句）。然后又對(duì)該法條的立法本意作以闡釋：在于保護(hù)記者或作者的資料來源（第四段第二句）。并通過這一表述來說明不能將該法條作狹義解釋（第四段第三、四、五句）。接著進(jìn)一步說明公開信息不能超越為了防止犯罪的目的，并關(guān)切針對(duì)公開信息源的保護(hù)不應(yīng)被輕易地排除（第四段第六、七、八句）。最后陳述記者的義務(wù)應(yīng)解除，并表達(dá)了自己的法律意見：其一，義務(wù)在狹義上已經(jīng)解除，不應(yīng)該認(rèn)為被法律所提供的保護(hù)能夠僅僅因?yàn)橐粋�(gè)保證書上儀式主義的斷言而被凌駕。這斷言是特殊信息是防止犯罪所需。其二，不能簡單的認(rèn)為調(diào)查人員所進(jìn)行的調(diào)查是將偵查和預(yù)防犯罪作為目的的調(diào)查，也不能簡單的因?yàn)橐恍牡淖C人陳述特定的信息是為調(diào)查的目的所需，就當(dāng)然的僵化的認(rèn)可這樣的信息就對(duì)預(yù)防犯罪是必要的。其三，判決必須至少有充足的資料，使得該判決在一定需要的程度上作為獨(dú)立的判例適用于實(shí)踐（第四段第九——十四句）。
就案件的實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)核分析時(shí)，其先通過一個(gè)假定來指出案件的核心所在：所要公開的信息的實(shí)質(zhì)是什么（第五段第一句）。然后從五個(gè)方面闡釋這一信息的特質(zhì)（第五段第二——六句）。接著在闡釋的基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)案件中的信息所表現(xiàn)的征貌進(jìn)行剖析。依據(jù)剖析的結(jié)果得出自己的法律意見：這一信息應(yīng)歸于“為了預(yù)防犯罪而必要”的信息（第五段第七——十二句）。
在分析了法律條文及案件中與法律相關(guān)的事項(xiàng)后，結(jié)合已經(jīng)陳述了法律意見的議員(Griffiths)的文詞，提出法律議決：撤銷起訴（指對(duì)于Warner藐視法庭罪的訴訟的撤銷），但裁定其必須回答詢問，并接受罰金。
僅就上議院對(duì)此案件的審理來分析，就會(huì)明晰其未對(duì)案件的事實(shí)做出裁決。這是由于在英國上議院的審理一般僅就案件進(jìn)行法律審。所以其審判者主要從法律條文的實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)蘊(yùn)及案件中與法律相關(guān)的內(nèi)容從法律的角度來闡釋，最終得出其處理意見。
以案述法
首先，案例的發(fā)生并不起因于財(cái)經(jīng)記者的報(bào)道，而是調(diào)查人員已經(jīng)在調(diào)查某一與內(nèi)幕交易相關(guān)聯(lián)的案件。調(diào)查人員在調(diào)查過程中發(fā)現(xiàn)財(cái)經(jīng)記者的報(bào)道與其調(diào)查對(duì)象有關(guān)，故而對(duì)記者進(jìn)行詢問。根據(jù)英國1986年金融服務(wù)法第177條第（1）款[國務(wù)大臣認(rèn)為有跡象表明1993年刑事審判法第五編（內(nèi)幕交易）規(guī)定的犯罪行為可能已經(jīng)發(fā)生的，可以任命一名或多名具有法律資格的調(diào)查人員為確定上述犯罪行為是否已經(jīng)發(fā)生進(jìn)行調(diào)查，并將調(diào)查結(jié)果報(bào)告國務(wù)大臣] [3](P.193)可知：本案例是一宗內(nèi)幕交易調(diào)查的衍生案例。由該款還可看出，調(diào)查人員的產(chǎn)生必須基于一定的已然事實(shí)，而且存在已經(jīng)可能發(fā)生的犯罪行為。還有，調(diào)查的啟動(dòng)必須得到一定機(jī)構(gòu)的授權(quán)。
其次，案件之所以能夠衍生，是調(diào)查人員基于法律賦予的調(diào)查權(quán)限而形成。據(jù)第177條第（3）款，[調(diào)查人員可以要求任何在其看來能夠或者可能提供與上述犯罪行為有關(guān)的信息的人：(A)向調(diào)查人員提供其所掌握或控制的并且在調(diào)查人員看來，與調(diào)查對(duì)象有關(guān)的任何文件；（B）接受當(dāng)面質(zhì)詢；或(C)不能接受當(dāng)面質(zhì)詢的，應(yīng)當(dāng)向調(diào)查人員提供與調(diào)查對(duì)象有關(guān)的其所能提供的所有協(xié)助。遵守上述要求是該人的責(zé)任。] [3](P.193) 當(dāng)調(diào)查人員發(fā)現(xiàn)財(cái)經(jīng)記者所報(bào)道的文章與所調(diào)查的對(duì)象有關(guān)聯(lián)，就有權(quán)要求財(cái)經(jīng)記者回復(fù)詢問。而財(cái)經(jīng)記者可能基于慣例拒絕公開其信息的來源。此一情況下，調(diào)查人員根據(jù)第178條第（1）款將案件提交法庭。[任何人如果：（A）拒絕遵守上面第177條第（3）款規(guī)定的任何要求，或（B）拒絕回答依據(jù)該條規(guī)定被任命的調(diào)查人員向其提出的與確定任何可疑罪行是否發(fā)生有關(guān)的任何質(zhì)詢，經(jīng)調(diào)查人員向法庭出示書面證明，法庭可就上述事實(shí)進(jìn)行調(diào)查。] [3](P.195-196)
此案例文獻(xiàn)中未說明案件是否經(jīng)過別的法庭審理，故將其視為直接起訴到上議院（appeal to House of Lords）。由文中所述可知，該次審理由五名法官審理（GRIFFITHS、OLIVER、KEITH、ROSKILL、GOFF）。法官們意見不一致，最終依據(jù)多數(shù)意見來裁定案件。既沒有完全支持調(diào)查人員的訴求（撤銷了起訴），也沒有認(rèn)可財(cái)經(jīng)記者的拒絕理由（裁決他必須回答對(duì)其的詢問，并對(duì)它的拒絕回答處以罰金，盡管罰金由其所服務(wù)的單位來支付）。其所依據(jù)的法律包括第178條第（2）款[在聽取反對(duì)或支持被指控違反前寬規(guī)定的人提供的證據(jù)及辯護(hù)意見之后，法庭認(rèn)為該人無合法理由拒絕遵守前寬規(guī)定的要求或回答上述質(zhì)詢的，可以：(A)對(duì)其按藐視法庭罪處以刑罰；] [3](P.196)、藐視法庭法（1981）第10條。通過解釋來發(fā)現(xiàn)這兩個(gè)法律所蘊(yùn)含的法律實(shí)質(zhì)，并將解釋用于案件的審理中。也就是說，審判官于紙上的法律條文的里面來洞察、尋覓法律的實(shí)質(zhì)意義。
法律分析
當(dāng)然，這一案例是因內(nèi)幕交易的調(diào)查而衍生出來的一邊際案件。如果要對(duì)英國內(nèi)幕交易的調(diào)整規(guī)范作分析，還要將其相關(guān)法律涉入才能達(dá)到較為清晰的脈路。
首先，內(nèi)幕交易案件的產(chǎn)生源于法律所賦予的調(diào)查權(quán)。而調(diào)查權(quán)得以產(chǎn)生的依據(jù)就是作為秩序的最后防線的刑事法規(guī)所呈列的法條：1993刑事審判法中第五章之內(nèi)容[內(nèi)幕交易（第52-64條）] [3](P.285-294)。該章節(jié)法律條文為明確判斷相關(guān)行為奠定基石。更值得注意的是1986年金融服務(wù)法第177條第（1）款[國務(wù)大臣認(rèn)為有跡象表明1993年刑事審判法第五編（內(nèi)幕交易）規(guī)定的犯罪行為可能已經(jīng)發(fā)生的，可以任命一名或多名具有法律資格的調(diào)查人員為確定上述犯罪行為是否已經(jīng)發(fā)生進(jìn)行調(diào)查，并將調(diào)查結(jié)果報(bào)告國務(wù)大臣] [3](P.193)。由該條可知，內(nèi)幕交易案件的發(fā)生權(quán)掌握于特定的機(jī)關(guān)：國務(wù)大臣。即并非任何人都可以啟動(dòng)內(nèi)幕交易案件。綜上可看出英國人的固有法律思維：有救濟(jì)才有法律。作為對(duì)內(nèi)幕交易的規(guī)制，其目的在于維護(hù)市場的公信力。只有共信力需要救濟(jì)時(shí)才能啟動(dòng)法律。同時(shí)救濟(jì)的發(fā)生需源于一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)而非公民個(gè)體。再有，對(duì)于內(nèi)幕交易的調(diào)查根據(jù)刑事法規(guī)中的犯罪可能，呈現(xiàn)一個(gè)由后向前遞推的（或者說前溯型）解決問題方式。這與英國習(xí)慣的自由不干涉主義思維相符合，即只有你碰線才問你，否則不問，聽任其自為。
其次，內(nèi)幕交易案件活動(dòng)的主線在于調(diào)查權(quán)的行使。當(dāng)案件產(chǎn)生和權(quán)力授予后，針對(duì)內(nèi)幕交易的法律活動(dòng)便以調(diào)查權(quán)的行使為主線展開。在調(diào)查展開前，需就調(diào)查的對(duì)象、范圍做出明確的規(guī)定。第177條第（3）、（4）款對(duì)此有了陳述。[（3）調(diào)查人員可以要求任何在其看來能夠或者可能提供與上述犯罪行為有關(guān)的信息的人：(A)向調(diào)查人員提供其所掌握或控制的并且在調(diào)查人員看來，與調(diào)查對(duì)象有關(guān)的任何文件；（B）接受當(dāng)面質(zhì)詢；或(C)不能接受當(dāng)面質(zhì)詢的，應(yīng)當(dāng)向調(diào)查人員提供與調(diào)查對(duì)象有關(guān)的其所能提供的所有協(xié)助。遵守上述要求是該人的責(zé)任。（4）調(diào)查人員在其所認(rèn)為能夠或可能提供與犯罪行為有關(guān)的信息的人宣誓后，可以對(duì)該人進(jìn)行審查，為此調(diào)查人員可以主持有關(guān)宣誓。] [3](P.194) 調(diào)查權(quán)是基于法律而授予，故對(duì)調(diào)查權(quán)的行使就需法律的制約，正如第177條（2）、（2A）、（5）、（5A）各款所示。[（2）依據(jù)本條規(guī)定對(duì)調(diào)查人員的任命可以限定調(diào)查的期限及被調(diào)查事件的范圍。（2A）在調(diào)查過程中，國務(wù)大臣可以通過縮短或延長調(diào)查人員繼續(xù)調(diào)查的時(shí)間或者將調(diào)查對(duì)象限制在特定范圍內(nèi)變更其任命。（5）調(diào)查人員應(yīng)當(dāng)在其認(rèn)為合適的時(shí)間或根據(jù)國務(wù)大臣的要求向國務(wù)大成提交中期報(bào)告，并在調(diào)查結(jié)束后，向國務(wù)大臣提交終結(jié)報(bào)告。（5A）國務(wù)大臣認(rèn)為適當(dāng)?shù)�，可以指示調(diào)查人員就某項(xiàng)被調(diào)查的事件不再采取進(jìn)一步措施或者僅采取指示中規(guī)定的措施；對(duì)于該項(xiàng)被調(diào)查事件，國務(wù)大臣要求提交終期報(bào)告的，調(diào)查人員應(yīng)當(dāng)提交。] [3](P.193-194)
再次，作為調(diào)查活動(dòng)的相對(duì)人，其如何回應(yīng)調(diào)查活動(dòng)，也是法規(guī)所不可忘卻調(diào)整的。第177條第（6）、（7）、（8）、（9）各款對(duì)相對(duì)人的回應(yīng)做出明文規(guī)定。[（6）任何人根據(jù)本條規(guī)定的要求作出的任何陳述，可以作為對(duì)抗該人的證據(jù)。（7）任何人只要其在高等法院的訴訟程序中基于法律職業(yè)特性或在蘇格蘭最高民事法院的訴訟程序中基于職業(yè)法律顧問對(duì)當(dāng)事人負(fù)有保密義務(wù)有權(quán)拒絕如此行事，則該人不得被要求披露本條所指的任何信息或提供任何文件，但律師被要求提供其當(dāng)事人的名稱的住所的，不在此限。（8）任何人不得被要求披露或提供根據(jù)銀行業(yè)務(wù)規(guī)則該人對(duì)其負(fù)有保密義務(wù)的任何信息和文件，除非：（A）保密義務(wù)的承受者同意披露該信息或提供該文件。（B）披露該信息或提供該文件的要求得到了國務(wù)大臣的授權(quán)。（9）任何人對(duì)某份文件請(qǐng)求留置權(quán)的，依據(jù)本條規(guī)定對(duì)該文件的提供不得影響留置權(quán)的行使。] [3](P.194-195)
其四，當(dāng)調(diào)查活動(dòng)主事者調(diào)查人員與調(diào)查活動(dòng)的相對(duì)人之間進(jìn)行法律活動(dòng)時(shí)，必然會(huì)產(chǎn)生相互間的對(duì)立。對(duì)于這一對(duì)立如何運(yùn)用法規(guī)來調(diào)整也是立法時(shí)所需深慮的。為此，就有了第178條相關(guān)的規(guī)定。法律將調(diào)查相對(duì)人從大的方面劃分為參與內(nèi)幕交易的人和非參與內(nèi)幕交易的人。規(guī)制了對(duì)這兩類人統(tǒng)一適用的法規(guī)。如第178條第（1）、（2）、（6）款的各法條所示。[（1）任何人如果：（A）拒絕遵守上面第177條第（3）款規(guī)定的任何要求，或（B）拒絕回答依據(jù)該條規(guī)定被任命的調(diào)查人員向其提出的與確定任何可疑罪行是否發(fā)生有關(guān)的任何質(zhì)詢，經(jīng)調(diào)查人員向法庭出示書面證明，法庭可就上述事實(shí)進(jìn)行調(diào)查。（2）在聽取反對(duì)或支持被指控違反前款規(guī)定的人提供的證據(jù)及辯護(hù)意見之后，法庭認(rèn)為該人無合法理由拒絕遵守前款規(guī)定的要求或回答上述質(zhì)詢的，可以：(A)對(duì)其按藐視法庭罪處以刑罰；或（B）指示國務(wù)大臣對(duì)其行使本條授予的權(quán)利。法庭認(rèn)為該人已經(jīng)被告知出庭的權(quán)利及根據(jù)本條規(guī)定可以行使的其他權(quán)利的，無論法庭對(duì)于該違法人是否具有管轄權(quán)，均可發(fā)出上面（B）項(xiàng)規(guī)定的指示。（6）為本條第（2）款規(guī)定之目的，如犯罪行為或可疑犯罪行為與某人根據(jù)另一人的指示或?yàn)樗说睦孢M(jìn)行的交易由有關(guān)，下述事實(shí)不得成為其拒絕遵守上面第178的要求或回答該條規(guī)定的質(zhì)詢的合理理由：（A）該人不了解另一人的真實(shí)身份；或者（B）該人受聯(lián)合王國境外的某個(gè)國家或地區(qū)的法律的約束，并且該國法律禁止其在未得到另一人的同意的情況下披露有關(guān)交易的信息，只要其有可能獲得另一人的同意或得到該國法律的豁免。] [3](P.195-197)
而從第178條第（2）款中分出了對(duì)參與內(nèi)幕交易的人的規(guī)制法條：即第178條第（3）、（5）、（7）、（8）、（9）款法條所述。[（3）法庭依據(jù)前款（B）向發(fā)出的指示與被授權(quán)人有關(guān)的，國務(wù)大臣可以向該人發(fā)出表明如下意圖的通知：（A）通知發(fā)出后規(guī)定期間屆滿時(shí)，撤銷對(duì)該人經(jīng)營投資業(yè)務(wù)的授權(quán)；（B）規(guī)定時(shí)間屆滿時(shí)，撤銷其成為被授權(quán)經(jīng)營投資業(yè)務(wù)的人的資格；（C）在該人履行通知生效前所訂立的合同的特定期間內(nèi)，限制對(duì)其經(jīng)營投資業(yè)務(wù)的授權(quán)；（D）禁止該人締結(jié)特定種類的交易或禁止其在特定條件或特定范圍之外締結(jié)交易；（E）禁止該人向特定種類的人招攬業(yè)務(wù)或禁止其以該種方式之外的任何方式經(jīng)營業(yè)務(wù)；（F）禁止該人以某種特定方式經(jīng)營業(yè)務(wù)或禁止其以該種方式以外的任何方式經(jīng)營業(yè)務(wù)。（5）法庭就未被授權(quán)人作出本條第（2）款（B）項(xiàng)規(guī)定的指示的，國務(wù)大臣可以發(fā)出指示，指出任何故意與該人或代表該人進(jìn)行特定種類的投資業(yè)務(wù)交易，或在特定條件下或特定程度上進(jìn)行該種投資業(yè)務(wù)交易的被授權(quán)人，違反了依據(jù)本法第一編第五章制定的任何規(guī)則，該被授權(quán)人因被認(rèn)可的自律組織的會(huì)員資格或被認(rèn)可的職業(yè)團(tuán)體簽發(fā)的證書取得授權(quán)資格的，應(yīng)當(dāng)視為違反了該組織或團(tuán)體的規(guī)則。（7）根據(jù)本條第（3）款規(guī)定向某人發(fā)出的通知，可以由國務(wù)大臣在任何時(shí)候向該人發(fā)出撤銷通知而撤銷；并且國務(wù)大臣認(rèn)為該人已經(jīng)同意遵守有關(guān)要求或回答有關(guān)質(zhì)詢的，應(yīng)當(dāng)撤銷其根據(jù)該款規(guī)定發(fā)出的通知。（8）對(duì)某人撤銷上面第（3）款（A）項(xiàng)規(guī)定的通知，不同時(shí)具有恢復(fù)由上述通知所撤銷的授權(quán)的效力，除非該人（與通知無關(guān)）在被撤銷授權(quán)之前，其授權(quán)資格來自被認(rèn)可的自律組織的會(huì)員資格或被認(rèn)可的職業(yè)團(tuán)體簽發(fā)的證書；但本條規(guī)定不得妨礙被送達(dá)通知的人在通知撤銷后重新成為被授權(quán)人的權(quán)利。（9）如果再國務(wù)大臣看來：（A）依據(jù)上面第（3）款規(guī)定被送達(dá)通知的人為被授權(quán)人，且其授權(quán)資格來自指定代理機(jī)關(guān)的授權(quán)，被認(rèn)可的自律組織的會(huì)員資格或被認(rèn)可的職業(yè)團(tuán)體簽發(fā)的證書，或者（B）依據(jù)上面第（7）款規(guī)定被送達(dá)撤銷通知的人在該項(xiàng)被撤銷的通知發(fā)出之時(shí)為前項(xiàng)規(guī)定種類的被授權(quán)人，國務(wù)大臣應(yīng)當(dāng)向該指定代理機(jī)關(guān)、組織、或團(tuán)體送達(dá)上述通知的副本。] [3](P.196-198)
最后是案件的結(jié)局和權(quán)利的歸復(fù)。內(nèi)幕交易案件的調(diào)查的最終結(jié)局不外乎以下幾個(gè)方面：其一，調(diào)查順利完成，中間沒有出現(xiàn)相對(duì)人的拒絕行為�？赡軟]有足夠的證據(jù)證明犯罪成立，或者有證據(jù)證明犯罪成立。這需依據(jù)1993年刑事審判法中的法條來判斷。如果犯罪成立，第177條第（11）款內(nèi)容需要遵守。[（11）根據(jù)本條規(guī)定的調(diào)查結(jié)果被提起訴訟并宣判有罪的，可在同一訴訟中被命令支付規(guī)定的調(diào)查費(fèi)用。計(jì)算上述費(fèi)用時(shí)，國務(wù)大臣有權(quán)確定的總的人員支出和行政支出的合理款項(xiàng)，應(yīng)當(dāng)作為調(diào)查費(fèi)用。] [3](P.195) 其二，調(diào)查中有拒絕行為�？梢罁�(jù)藐視法庭罪來處罰，但是否必然要依此罪處罰還需根據(jù)相關(guān)法律。本案例中就未對(duì)財(cái)經(jīng)記者以此罪論。也可以對(duì)拒絕行為人處以其他處罰（如本案例所述）。在拒絕行為發(fā)生后，是否將調(diào)查進(jìn)行至完成，則依據(jù)國務(wù)大臣的決定和法庭的判決。如使調(diào)查終止當(dāng)以國務(wù)大臣的決定或法庭的判決形成定論，如使調(diào)查繼續(xù)進(jìn)行至完成則形成上述（其一）所述的結(jié)局。調(diào)查不管以何種形式終止，調(diào)查人員的權(quán)力交付并消失，不再行使。
結(jié)語
英國在其交易活動(dòng)的漫長的歷程中，逐漸形成其對(duì)內(nèi)幕交易的調(diào)控規(guī)則。這對(duì)于我們有不可或缺的借鑒，但還應(yīng)更多的關(guān)注其依據(jù)固有的習(xí)慣闡釋的法律理念。對(duì)同一問題的分析會(huì)有不同的視角和不同的切入點(diǎn)。此處將法律與案例相結(jié)合來分析，緣由在于英國是判例法國家，法官有權(quán)對(duì)法律做出解釋。但其能否直接對(duì)我們其借鑒作用，還需慎思。無論如何，英國對(duì)內(nèi)幕交易的規(guī)范模式和實(shí)際運(yùn)作，是值得去細(xì)細(xì)研究的。
中國股市在復(fù)開的十多年來，以相當(dāng)急速的跨越式膨脹發(fā)展。此間積生的問題必然會(huì)不少。如何解決是政府、學(xué)界都在努力求索的方向。但問題的積淀在彈指歲月間，其有效的解決不可妄然的想一蹴而就。必須將問題的諸因素多加細(xì)慮，才能尋求出有益的方式。如何維護(hù)市場的公信力，有效控制內(nèi)幕交易是內(nèi)幕交易立法及內(nèi)幕交易活動(dòng)不可避免的。尋求他山之石，也許會(huì)有所增益。這也是本文所期許的及立意所在。
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[1]周正慶主編. 證券知識(shí)讀本[M]. 北京：中國金融出版社，1998
[2]張明澍 編. 英國公司法經(jīng)典案例[M]. 北京：法律出版社，1998
[3]卞耀武主編. 英國證券發(fā)行與交易法律[M]. 北京：法律出版社，1999
鑒于自己學(xué)識(shí)的淺顯，對(duì)英文原文的理解會(huì)出現(xiàn)差錯(cuò)，會(huì)有許多偏頗，現(xiàn)附上英文原文，希望讀者予以指正。
附英文原文：
Re an Inquiry under the Company Securities (Inside Dealing) Act 1985 [1988] 1 All ER 203 (House of Lords)
Warner, a financial journalist, had published two articles which appeared to be based on first-hand information about confidential decision within a government department. Inspectors, who had been appointed to investigate suspected inside dealing based on the same information, required Warner to reveal his sources so that they could trace the Crown servant responsible for the leaks ; but he refused, claiming that as a journalist it was necessary for him to treat his sources as confidential. The inspectors referred the matter to the court, asking that Warner be dealt with as if he had been in contempt of court (Financial Services Act 1986 s 178). The House of Lords ruled that Warner was bound too answer the inspectors’ question. [Subsequently he was fined $20,000 for contempt, having persisted in his refusal. The fine was paid by the newspaper for which he worked.]
LORD GRIFFITHS delivered an opinion in favour of the inspectors.
LORD OLIVER OF AYLMERTON: My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Griffiths I entirely agree that, for the reasons which he has given s10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is not directly applicable to a reference to the court under s178 of the Financial Services Act 1986.I also agree, however, that, even though not directly applicable, s10 is indicative of a general policy which should, on such a reference, be applied by way of analogy. Thus the essential question raised by this appeal is whether ,it being accepted that unless the information sought can be brought within one or other of the exceptions mentioned in s10 Mr. Warner has a reasonable excuse for declining to disclose it, it is information which is ‘necessary…for the prevention of …crime’.
Like my noble and learned friend, I have found myself unable to accept that the expression ‘prevention of …crime’ in s10 of the Act of 1981 is to be construed in the narrow sense for which Mr. Kentridge has contended. Clearly, in enacting s10, Parliament was enunciating a public policy for the protection of a journalist’s or author’s sources of information. Equally clearly, in providing for exceptional circumstances in which that protection should be overridden, it did so on the footing that those exceptions would have some practical application. The narrow construction contended for would, as it seems to me, largely deprive the exception of any useful content at all, for it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which a court or tribunal would be concerned to investigate a particular anticipated crime. The words must bear a wider meaning than that and must, I think, at least embrace the detection and prosecution of crimes which are shown to have been committed and where detection and prosecution could sensibly be said to act as a practical deterrent to future criminal conduct of a similar type. I do not, therefore, for my part doubt that a disclosure required to enable persons shown to have been engaged in a criminal activity to be identified and prosecuted is a disclosure required for ‘the prevention of …crime’. At the same time it has to be borne in mind that the protection against disclosure is not lightly to be cast aside and that the conditions required for its removal have to be positively established to the satisfaction of the court. If there is danger that the exception may be deprived of any useful content by too narrow an interpretation of the protection itself being attenuated to an unacceptable degree if the need for positive establishment of those requirements is too lightly regarded. What has chiefly concerned me in the instant appeal is whether this onus has been sufficiently discharged by the evidence filed on behalf of the inspectors. In my judgment, however, it has only narrowly been discharged and I am concerned that it should not be thought that the protection afforded by the Act can be overcome merely by a ritualistic assertion on affidavit that particular information is required for the prevention of crime. Obviously the court will pay a proper regard to the views of things, know better than anyone else the stage which their inquiries have reached and what is needful for their successful prosecution. But it cannot, in my judgment, and must not be thought to be sufficient dimply to say that the inquiry upon which the body is engaged is one which has as its object the detection and prevention of crime and that, because a deponent says that certain information is required for the purpose of the inquiry, it therefore follows inexorably that the information is necessary for ‘the prevention of…crime’. The court must, in my judgment, be presented at least with sufficient material to enable it to exercise an independent judgment on the extent of the need.
If the evidence filed on behalf of the inspectors is open to the criticism that it could have been more specific about the results so far of the inquiries undertaken, one can, at the same time, see very good reasons why the inspectors, in an inquiry whose avowed purpose is to identify and report on criminal activity, should not wish to reveal in greater detail than is strictly requisite the course which their inquiries are taking. What the evidence does disclose is, first, that their is a ring of people who have dealt on the Stock Exchange using price-sensitive information derived from at least one servant of the Crown. Secondly, it is demonstrated that the dealing have been on a considerable scale. Thirdly, it is an irresistible inference that the Crown servant or servants responsible for providing the price-sensitive information has or have been acting in breach of a duty of confidence. Fourthly, the inference is well-night irresistible that unless both the source of the information and the persons engaged in the ring can be identified and stopped the course of criminal conduct involved in such dealings is likely to continue. Fifthly, it is beyond dispute that Mr. Warner, without any suggestion of impropriety on his part, is the author of two articles in which unpublished information has been deployed with an accuracy which cannot reasonably be attributed to mere coincidence. That information clearly was, before its publication by Mr. Warner, price-sensitive information and it can, initially, only have come from a Crown servant. Now obviously the precise purpose which will be served by the disclosure of the source of Mr. Warner’s information is not capable of being predicated with complete accuracy until the disclosure takes place, but I cannot for my part think that the evidence can properly be criticized as insufficient simply on that score. It may be that it will lead, whether by way of original inquiry or by way of confirmation, directly to the identification of a member of the ring or of the Crown servants involved. It may be that it will lead to the identification of someone not at present even suspected as a member of the dealing ring or to the revelation of a second and at present unidentified ring of dealers. It may be entirely inconclusive or serve only for the purpose of elimination. None of these results appears to me, on analysis, to disqualify it as information ‘necessary…for the prevention of …crime’, for, if the exception in s10 is to have any sensible operation, it cannot, in my judgment, be an essential characteristic of such information that the result to which it will lead should be capable of being predicated with precision before it is even known what the information is. For these reasons and for the reasons contained in the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Griffiths, I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.
LORDS KEITH OF KINKEL, ROSKILL and GOFF OF CHIEVELEY concurred.
