:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:論證券詐欺事件投資人之保護-以美國證管會為例強化我國證券主管機關之執法手段
作者:游志煌
作者(外文):YU, CHIH-HUANG
校院名稱:東吳大學
系所名稱:法律學系
指導教授:莊永丞
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2018
主題關鍵詞:禁制令返還不法利益民事懲罰金公平基金解除職務凍結資產injunctiondisgorgementcivil penaltyfair funddebarmentasset freeze
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:13
證券法規之有效執行,有賴投資人、證券主管機關及檢察官之共同努力。我國近年來有關證券法規執行之法律架構上,似乎比較著重民事求償與刑事訴追。在刑事訴追方面,我國從1988年以來兩次修訂證券交易法,提高證券詐欺之刑責。然而,根據國內多項實證研究,我國內線交易之起訴率、定罪率及最終刑責都偏低,刑事案件從起訴到判決確定需經過多年時間。基此,我國將證券詐欺定性為刑事責任,限縮證券主管機關之行政制裁權(例如科處行政罰鍰),應有討論之空間。
有關民事責任方面,我國2002年制定投資人保護法並設立投資人保護中心負責團體訴訟,在保全程序及假執行時均得免供擔保,似有意由投資人保護中心扮演類似美國證管會執法部之角色,積極保護投資人權益。2009年修正投資人保護法增訂第10條之1,賦予投資人保護中心提起代表訴訟之權限並得提起裁判解任董監訴訟。然而,投資人保護中心欠缺執法公權力,在案件調查方面通常需仰賴金管會之調查資料或檢察官之起訴資料,因此,提起團體訴訟之時效通常較慢,實務上採取保全程序的案子有限,有時被告在判決確定後已不具有可供執行的財產,此外,裁判解任董監事訴訟亦僅部分案件獲得勝訴判決。與美國證管會相比,我國投資人保護中心也不具向法院請求被告返還不法利益或科處民事懲罰金之權限。
證券主管機關具有執法公權力及專業性,應擔負起對證券詐欺的執法工作,在第一時間對證券詐欺採取執法手段。參考美國證管會之實務,建立一套完整的制裁機制,能透過禁制令、請求返還不法利益、科處民事懲罰金、分配公平基金、禁止董事擔任職務及凍結資產等多元化執法手段,就個案量身訂作適當的救濟手段。考量我國證券主管機關之人力、物力及資源有限,本文建議應漸進式擴張證券主管機關之執法權限。就近期目標而言,先考慮引進與我國相類似的制度,包括科處行政罰鍰及解除董監事職務兩項執法手段。就中期目標而言,得考慮引進請求返還不法利益及資產凍結的執法手段。就長期目標而言,需審慎評估引進禁制令是否有助於證券主管機關完備其執法手段。此外,證券主管機關的諸多執法手段與投資人保護中心或檢察官的執法行動具有互補性,得考慮建立協調機制,在個案中由證券主管機關、投資人保護中心及/或檢察官視案件重大性、急迫性及所需救濟手段等因素共同採取執法行動。
The effective enforcement of the securities regulation depends on the joint efforts of the investors, securities regulator and the prosecutors. It appears that the legal mechanism for the enforcement of the securities regulation in Taiwan focuses more on civil remedies and criminal prosecution for recent years. With respect to the criminal prosecution, the Securities and Exchange Act has been revised twice since 1988 to elevate the criminal liabilities of the securities fraud. However, according to several empirical studies, the prosecution rate, conviction rate and final criminal liabilities for the securities fraud are comparatively low. In addition, it takes years for the prosecutor to bring the criminal case to the final judgment. As a result, there is room to discuss whether the securities fraud should be subject to criminal liabilities alone, or whether the securities regulator may concurrently take administrative actions, such as imposing administrative fines, to punish the wrongdoers.
Regarding the civil liabilities, the Securities Investors Protection Act and the Securities Investor Protection Center created thereunder were in place from 2002 to take class action on behalf of investors. In addition, the Securities Investors Protection Center may take provisional attachment and provisional enforcement without posting bonds. It appears that the Securities Investor Protection Center plays the role like the Enforcement Division of the US Securities and Exchange Commission to actively advocate investors. Moreover, Article 10-1 was added to the Securities Investor Protection Act authorizing the Securities Investor Protection Center to file derivative suit as well as take action to remove the directors and supervisors of the company. However, the Securities Investors Protection Center does not have the law enforcement power. The investigation of the Securities Investors Protection Center into the cases largely depends on the data and information from the Financial Supervisory Commission and the prosecutors. As such, the timing of taking class action is normally delayed. In addition, there are limited cases where the Securities Investors Protection Center successfully took provisional attachment on the assets of the defendant. It is not surprising that after years of lawsuits, the defendant may not have assets available for compensating the investors' claims. Furthermore, the Securities Investors Protection Center prevailed in just a few cases of removing the directors and supervisors of the company. Compared to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the Securities Investors Protection Center has no authority to initiate a lawsuit to impose civil penalties or claim the disgorgement of unlawful benefits.
The securities regulator has the law enforcement power and expertise to bear the responsibility for enforcing laws against the securities frauds and taking enforcement action at the first moment. The enforcement tools, including injunction, disgorgement, civil penalty, fair fund, debarment and asset freeze, are usually used by the US Securities and Exchange Commission as the sanction mechanism to customize the remedies for the securities frauds. Considering that the manpower and resources of the securities regulator in Taiwan are limited, we propose taking a step by step approach to reinforce the enforcement power of the Taiwanese securities regulator. In the short term, we may consider introducing those enforcement tools that we have similar counterparts in our legal system, including imposing the administrative penalties and debarment orders. In the mid term, we may consider introducing the enforcement tools, including the disgorgement of unlawful benefits and the asset freeze order. In the long term, we may carefully assess whether the introduction of injunction is helpful to complete the enforcement arsenal of the securities regulator. In addition, certain enforcement tools of the securities regulator are complementary to those of the Securities Investors Protection Center and the prosecutors. By establishing certain coordination protocol and taking into consideration the factors such as the materiality and urgency of the case and the remedies suitable for the case, the securities regulator may work hand in hand with the Securities Investors Protection Center and the prosecutors to take appropriate enforcement action in each individual case.
一、中文文獻

(一)中文書籍

王志誠、邵慶平、洪秀芬、陳俊仁,實用證券交易法,台北:新學林,2013年。

吳光明,證券交易法論,台北:三民書局,2015年。

李開遠,證券交易法理論與實務,台北:五南圖書,2014年。

郭大維,論我國證券市場內線交易行政制裁法制之建構,收錄於法學的實踐與創新-陳猷龍教授六秩華誕祝壽論文集,台北:承法數位文化,2013年12月。new window

望月禮二郎著,郭建譯,英美法,台北:五南圖書,1999年3月。

陳冲,比較銀行法,台北:財團法人金融研究訓練中心,1998年。

陳春山,證券交易法論,台北:五南圖書,2007年。

黃銘傑,日本最近證券交易法修正對我國之啟示−以行政及民事責任規範改革為中心,收錄於現代公司法制之新課題−賴英照大法官六秩華誕祝賀論文集,台北:元照出版有限公司,初版,2005年8月。new window

曾宛如,證券交易法原理,台北:自版,2012年。new window

廖大穎,證券交易法導論,台北:三民書局,2013年。

熊秉元,法律經濟學開講,台北:時報文化,初版,2007年。

劉連煜,新證券交易法實例研習,台北:自版,增訂十三版,2015年。new window

賴英照,最新證券交易法解析,台北:自版,四版,2017年。

(二)中文期刊論文

王文宇、張冀明,非營利組織主導的證券團體訴訟-論投資人保護中心,月旦民商法雜誌,15期,頁5-33,2007年3月。

李紅海,自足的普通法與不自足的衡平法-論英國普通法與衡平法的關係,清華法學,6期,頁20-29,2010年11月。

邵慶平,投保中心代表訴訟的公益性:檢視、強化與反省,臺大法學論叢,44卷1期,頁223-62,2015年3月。new window

林仁光,裁判解任董事及董事長,月旦法學教室,114期,頁42-51,2012年4月。

林仁光,西風東漸-談內線交易Civil Penalty制度之發展,月旦法學雜誌,231期,頁80-97,2014年8月。

林志潔,內線交易「實際知悉」要件之舉證與心證門檻,月旦法學雜誌,222期,頁109-32,2013年11月。

林郁馨,投資人的諾亞方舟-投資人保護中心與證券團體訴訟之實證研究,月旦法學雜誌,229期,頁75-97,2014年6月。

林國彬,消費者保護機關之權限,月旦法學雜誌,249期,頁171-96,2016年2月。

姜世明,釋明之研究-以證明度為中心,東吳法律學報,20卷1期,頁61-105,2008年7月。new window

郭大維,我國證券投資人保護機制之省思(下),台灣法學雜誌,125期,頁22-35,2009年4月。

郭大維,論我國內線交易法制-由英美兩國對證券市場內線交易之規範談起,軍法專刊,56卷4期,頁54-77,2010年8月。new window

莊永丞,論證券價格操縱行為之規範理論基礎-從行為人散布流言或不實資料之操縱行為開展,東吳法律學報,20卷1期,頁167-204,2008年7月。new window

張天一,日本金融商品交易法上課徵金制度之介紹−兼論強化證券交易法上行政制裁之必要性,檢察新論,第21期,頁242-64,2017年1月。new window

張亮、王健,我國訴前禁令制度探析,佛山科學技術學院學報(社會科學版),頁69,2010年1月。

許育典,行政罰與刑罰的競合-評台北高等行政法院九十五年訴字第一四三六號判決,月旦裁判時報,3期,頁20-25,2010年6月。

陳春山,不實財務報告之民事法律適用爭議,證券暨期貨月刊,22卷6期,頁23-64,2004年6月。

曾宛如,有關證券投資人保護之未來發展,月旦財經法雜誌,2期,頁191-207,2005年9月。

曾宛如,有限責任與債權人之保護,臺大法學論叢,35卷5期,頁103-62,2006年9月。new window

黃朝琮,董事違反受託義務之事前救濟,法令月刊,66卷4期,頁115-41,2015年4月。new window

游志煌,主導私權證券訴訟之法制模型探討-律師驅策vs.非營利組織,月旦法學雜誌,113期,頁150-74,2004年10月。

詹德恩,我國金融犯罪特性與抗制難題,中正財經法學,7期,頁159-220,2013年7月。new window

鄭子俊,證券訴訟之治理-以訴訟出資者為中心,法學新論,31期,頁97-133,2011年8月。new window

劉其昌,證券投資人及期貨交易人保護法分析,證交資料,49期,頁2-19,2003年2月。

劉建宏,行政訴訟之證明度,月旦法學教室,124期,頁10,2013年2月。

劉連煜,投保中心對董監事提起解任之訴的性質-東森國際案最高法院100年度台上字第1303號民事裁定及其歷審判決之評釋,法令月刊,63卷4期,頁1-8,2012年4月。new window

劉連煜、林俊宏,投資人團體訴訟新時代的來臨,月旦法學雜誌,111期,頁80-98,2004年8月。

戴銘昇,日本金融商品交易法課徵金法律性質之研究−從程序面向觀之,台灣法學雜誌,276期,頁31-42,2015年7月。

(三)研究論文及研究報告

李禮仲,股市內線交易引申之法律爭議面面觀,財團法人國家政策研究基金會國政研究報告,2006年10月11日。new window

臺灣證券交易所,臺灣資本市場概況,2015年1月,http://www.twse.com.tw/ch/investor/foreign_invest/TCMI_CH_1501.pdf(最後瀏覽日:2017年10月12日)。

(四)報紙

吳馥馨,公司法翻修 董事失格可解任,經濟日報,2016年12月4日。

林偉信,最高法院撤銷 大同董座解職案 發回高院更審,工商時報,2017年7月11日。

高佳菁,樂陞案衍生2大問題 曾銘宗:應徹底改革,蘋果日報,2016年10月13日。

孫中英,丁克華稱已對百尺竿頭在台資產約10億進行「扣押」 遭投資人質疑,聯合報,2016年9月7日A14版。

張慧雯,樂陞流會代董盼許董交棒,經濟日報,2017年6月5日。

葉子菁,樂陞董監事資產假扣押傳每人6000萬元,自由時報,2017年6月17日。

蔡穎青,保護投資人 應強化投保法裁判解任制,經濟日報,2017年9月25日。

謝易宏,有價證券詐騙案集體求償談何容易(下),經濟日報,2002年10月13日。

(五)網路資料

法務部網站https://www.moj.gov.tw/

金融監督管理委員會網站 http://www.fsc.gov.tw/

金融監督管理委員會證券期貨局網站http://www.sfb.gov.tw/

臺灣證券交易所網站http://www.twse.com.tw/

證券櫃臺買賣中心網站http://www.tpex.org.tw/web/

二、英文文獻

(一)英文書籍

COFFEE, JOHN C., JR., & SELIGMAN, JOEL, SECURITIES REGULATION: CASES AND MATERIALS, FOUNDATION PRESS, NEW YORK, U.S.A. (9th ed. 2002).

COX, JAMES D. ET AL., SECURITIES REGULATIONS, ASPEN PUBLISHERS, NEW YORK, U.S.A. (5th ed. 2006).

HAZEN, THOMAS LEE, TREATISE ON THE LAW OF SECURITIES REGULATION, WEST PUBLISHING, ST. PAUL, U.S.A. (updated 6th ed. 2015).

LOSS, LOUIS, & SELIGMAN, JOEL, FUNDAMENTALS OF SECURITIES REGULATION, ASPEN PUBLISHERS, NEW YORK, U.S.A. (5th ed. 2003).

STEINBERG, MARC I., & FERRARA, RALPH C., SECURITIES PRACTICE: FEDERAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT, WEST PUBLISHING, ST. PAUL, U.S.A. (2014).

(二)英文期刊論文

Am. Bar Ass’n, Understanding Injunctions, 14(2) INSIGHTS ON L & SOC’Y (2014), https://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/14/winter-2014/understanding-injunctions.html.

Atkins, Paul S., & Bondi, Bradley J., Evaluating the Mission: A Critical Review of the History and Evolution of the SEC Enforcement Program, 13 FORDHAM J. CORP. & FIN. L. 367, 367-417 (2008).

Barnard, Jayne W., SEC Debarment of Officers and Directors after Sarbanes-Oxley, 59 BUS. LAW. 391, 391-419 (2004).

Black, Barbara, Should the SEC Be a Collection Agency for Defrauded Investors?, 63 BUS. LAW. 317, 317-46 (2008).

Coffee, John C., Jr., Accountability and Competition in Securities Class Actions: Why “Exit” Works Better than “Voice”, 30 CARDOZO L. REV. 407, 407-44 (2008).

Coffee, John C., Jr., Litigation Governance: Taking Accountability Seriously,
110 COLUM. L. REV. 288, 288-351 (2010).

Coffee, John C., Jr., & Sale, Hillary A., Redesigning the SEC: Does the Treasury Have a Better Idea?, 95 Va. L. Rev. 707, 707-83 (2009).

Frankel, Tamar, Let the Securities and Exchange Commission Outsource Enforcement by Litigation: A Proposal, 11 J. BUS. & SEC. L. 111, 112 (2010).

Gallagher, Daniel M., Jr., The Securities and Exchange Commission – The Next 80 Years, 20 FORDHAM J. CORP. & FIN. L. 626, 627 (2015).

Gilchrist, Wesley Bowen, Turning up the Heat: The SEC’s New Temporary Freeze Authority, 56 ALA. L. REV. 873, 873-97 (2005).

GORDON, JEFFREY, & RINGE, WOLF-GEORG, eds., OXFORD HANDBOOK OF CORPORATE LAW AND GOVERNANCE, NEW YORK, U.S.A. (forthcoming 2018).

Lin, Andrew Jen-Guang, The Challenges and Contemporary Issues of Taiwan’s Investor Protection System: A Model to Learn or to Avoid, 11 NAT’L TAIWAN UNIV. L. REV. 129, 129-217 (2016).

Lin, Yu-Hsin, Modeling Securities Class Actions Outside the United States: The Role of Nonprofits Organization in the Case of Taiwan, 4 N.Y.U. J.L. & BUS. 143, 143-96 (2007).

Milhaupt, Curtis J., Nonprofit Organization as Investor Protection: Economic Theory, and Evidence from East Asia, 29 YALE J. INT’L L. 169, 169-207 (2004).

Morrissey, Daniel J., SEC Injunctions, 68 TENN. L. REV. 427, 427-80 (2001).

Patterson, Joseph Quincy, Many Key Issues Still Left Unaddressed in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Attempt to Modernize its Rules of Practice, 91 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1675, 1676 (2016).

Roper, Richard B., Equity Receiverships in SEC Enforcement Actions, 59 THE ADVOCATE 26, 26-29 (2012).

Spehr, Richard A., & Annunziata, Michelle J., The Remedies Act Turns Fifteen: What Is Its Relevance Today? 1 N.Y.U. J.L. & BUS. 587, 587-612 (2005).

Wang, Wallace Wen-Yeu, & Chen, Jian-Lin, Reforming China’s Civil Class Actions: Lessons from PSLRA Reform in the U. S. and Government-Sanctioned Non-Profit Enforcement in Taiwan, 21 COLUM. J. ASIAN L. 115, 115-60 (2008).

Winship, Verity, Fair Fund and the SEC’s Compensation of Injured Investors, 60 FLA. L. REV. 1103, 1103-44 (2008).

Zimmerman, Adam S., Distributing Justice, 86 N. Y. U. L. REV. 500, 500-72 (2011).

(三)英文研究報告

IOSCO, OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES OF SECURITIES REGULATION (2010), https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD323.pdf.

IOSCO, METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IOSCO OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES OF SECURITIES REGULATION (rev. ed. 2013), https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD359.pdf.

IOSCO, CREDIBLE DETERRENCE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITIES REGULATION (2015), https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD490.pdf.

RAMPHAL, NISHAL RAY, THE ROLE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LITIGATION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITIES LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES (Aug. 2007) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pardee RAND Graduate School), http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_dissertations/2007/RAND_RGSD224.pdf.

SEC, 2011 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT (2011), https://www.sec.gov/about/secpar2011.shtml.

SEC, FISCAL YEAR 2016 AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT (2016), https://www.sec.gov/about/secpar/secafr2016.pdf.

SEC, REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 308(C) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (2003), http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/sox308creport.pdf.

(四)網路資料

BUNDESANSTALT FÜR FINANZDIENSTLEISTUNGSAUFSICHT, ABOUT US (2013), https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Broschuere/dl_b_bafin_stellt_sich_vor_en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2.

BUNDESANSTALT FÜR FINANZDIENSTLEISTUNGSAUFSICHT, ISSUER GUIDELINE (2009), https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Leitfaden/WA/dl_Emittentenleitfaden_2009_en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1.

SEC, ENFORCEMENT MANUAL (2016), https://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/enforcementmanual.pdf.

SEC, Litigation Release No. 19613 (Mar. 17, 2006), https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr19613.htm.

SEC, SEC Names New Specialized Unit Chiefs and Head of New Office of Market Intelligence (Jan. 13, 2010), https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-5.htm.

SEC, Statement of the Securities and Exchange Commission Concerning Financial Penalties (Jan. 4, 2006), https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006-4.htm.

SEC, Procedures Relating to the Commencement of Enforcement Proceedings and Termination of Staff Investigation, Securities Act Release No. 5310 (Sept. 22, 1972).

SEC, What We Do (June 10, 2013), http://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml.

Stanford Law School, Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, http://securities.stanford.edu/charts.html (last visited Jan. 26, 2018).

(五)法院判決

Cent. Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164 (1994).

Dolgow v. Anderson, 43 F.R.D. 472, 483 (E.D.N.Y. 1968).

Eberhard v. Marcu, 530 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008).

Goluba v. School Dist. of Ripon, 45 F.3d 1035, 1037 (7th Cir. 1995).

Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999).

Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997).

Newby v. Enron Corp., 188 F.Supp.2d 684 (S.D. Tex. 2002).

SEC v. Acacio, Civ. No. 2:01CV-1010ST (D. Utah filed Dec. 18, 2001).

SEC v. Am. Capital Invs., Inc., 98 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1996).

SEC v. Amazon Nat. Treasures, Inc, No. 03-17090, 132 Fed. Appx. 701 (9th
Cir. May 20, 2005).

SEC v. Coates, 137 F.Supp.2d 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

SEC v. Cobalt Multifamily Inv’rs. I, Inc., 542 F.Supp.2d 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

SEC v. Commonwealth Chem. Sec., Inc., 574 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1978).

SEC v. Conaway, 697 F.Supp.2d 733 (E.D. Mich. 2010).

SEC v. Current Fin. Servs., Inc., 783 F.Supp.1441 (D.D.C. 1992).

SEC v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F. 2d 1368, 1377 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

SEC v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560 (11th Cir. 1992).

SEC v. First City Fin. Corp., 890 F.2d 1215 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

SEC v. First Pac. Bancorp, 142 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 1998).

SEC v. Florida Bank Fund, Inc., No. 78-759, 1980 WL 1478 (M.D. Fla. 1980).

SEC v. Friendly Power Co., 49 F.Supp.2d 1363 (S.D. Fla. 1999).

SEC v. Homa, 99 C 6895 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 7, 2000).

SEC v. InterLink Data Network of Los Angeles, Inc., No. Civ. A. 93-3073 R, 1993 WL 603274 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 1993).

SEC v. Kozlowski, Civ. No. 02-CV-7312 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 12, 2002).

SEC v. Levine, 517 F.Supp.2d 121 (D.D.C. 2007).

SEC v. Manor Nursing Ctrs., Inc., 458 F.2d 1082 (2d Cir. 1972).

SEC v. Marino, No. 00-4176, 29 Fed.Appx. 538 (10th Cir. Jan. 25, 2002).

SEC v. Martino, 255 F.Supp.2d 268 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2002).

SEC v. Moran, 944 F.Supp. 286 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

SEC v. Pace, 173 F.Supp.2d 30 (D.D.C. 2001).

SEC v. Pardue, 367 F.Supp.2d 773 (E.D Pa. 2005).

SEC v. Patel, 61 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 1995).

SEC v. Patel, No. 93 Civ. 4603, 1994 WL 364089 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 1994).

SEC v. Posner, 16 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 1994).

SEC v. Pros Int’l, Inc., 994 F.2d 767 (10th Cir. 1993).

SEC v. Quinn, 997 F.2d 287 (7th Cir. 1993).

SEC v. R. J. Allen & Assocs., Inc., 386 F.Supp. 866 (S.D. Fla. 1974).

SEC v. Resteiner, C.A. No. 01-10637(PBS) (D. Mass. Sept. 15, 2003).

SEC v. Saylor, Civ. No. 1:00CV02995 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 14, 2000).

SEC v. Scott, 565 F.Supp. 1513 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).

SEC v. Teo, 746 F.3d 90 (3d Cir. 2014).

SEC v. Tome, 833 F.2d 1086 (2d Cir. 1987).

SEC v. Tourre, 4 F.Supp.3d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

SEC v. United Fin. Grp., Inc., 474 F.2d 354 (9th Cir. 1973).

SEC v. Warren, 534 F.3d 1368 (8th Cir. 2008).

United States v. Halper, 90 U.S. 435 (1989).
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE