期货内幕交易与泄露期货内幕信息行为比较研究
发布时间：2018-10-05 08:43
【摘要】：期货内幕交易行为和泄露期货内幕信息行为并非同一行为,二者可以从概念、立法、认定等方面进行区分。从概念上比较,二者是既有交叉、又分别具有独立性的两种行为。从立法上比较,我国现行法律均未明确规定二者的民事责任,仅对二者行政责任和刑事责任作出了规定。从认定和构成上比较,二者在行为主体、内幕信息和行为三个方面有所区别。从境内外"内幕知情人"界定上比较得知,我国"内幕知情人"立法范围较窄,缺少关于关联人和专门人士的规定。通过比较,有助于明确期货内幕交易行为和泄露期货内幕信息行为之间的界限,明确二者与"老鼠仓"、证券内幕交易等相关概念的区别,完善我国期货法制。
[Abstract]:The behavior of futures insider trading and the act of divulging inside information of futures are not the same behavior, they can be distinguished from concept, legislation, cognizance and so on. Conceptually, they are two kinds of behaviors which are both intersecting and independent. Compared with the legislation, the current law of our country has not clearly stipulated the civil liability of the two, but only the administrative liability and the criminal liability. From the view of identification and constitution, there are differences between them in three aspects: the subject, the inside information and the behavior. From the definition of "insider" inside and outside China, we know that the legislative scope of "insider" in our country is relatively narrow, and there is a lack of regulations on related persons and professionals. Through comparison, it is helpful to clarify the boundary between the behavior of futures insider trading and the behavior of divulging the inside information of futures, to make clear the difference between them and the related concepts of "rat trading" and securities insider trading, and to perfect the law system of futures in our country.
【作者单位】： 上海财经大学;
【分类号】：D922.287
[Abstract]:The behavior of futures insider trading and the act of divulging inside information of futures are not the same behavior, they can be distinguished from concept, legislation, cognizance and so on. Conceptually, they are two kinds of behaviors which are both intersecting and independent. Compared with the legislation, the current law of our country has not clearly stipulated the civil liability of the two, but only the administrative liability and the criminal liability. From the view of identification and constitution, there are differences between them in three aspects: the subject, the inside information and the behavior. From the definition of "insider" inside and outside China, we know that the legislative scope of "insider" in our country is relatively narrow, and there is a lack of regulations on related persons and professionals. Through comparison, it is helpful to clarify the boundary between the behavior of futures insider trading and the behavior of divulging the inside information of futures, to make clear the difference between them and the related concepts of "rat trading" and securities insider trading, and to perfect the law system of futures in our country.
【作者单位】： 上海财经大学;
【分类号】：D922.287
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 谷秀娟;;关于泄露内幕信息行为[J];资本市场;2002年10期
2 李林;浅议《证券法》关于内幕信息的界定[J];学海;1999年04期
3 胡光志;论证券内幕信息的构成要素[J];云南大学学报(法学版);2002年04期
4 陈建清;;析议内幕信息的界定[J];福建农林大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2007年04期
5 张小宁;解永照;;论内幕信息的重要性特征[J];武汉公安干部学院学报;2011年04期
6 陈林跃;;试论证券内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪之内幕信息界定[J];云南大学学报(法学版);2012年05期
7 王润生;余云华;;内幕交易犯罪中“知情人员”和“内幕信息”的认定探讨[J];犯罪研究;2012年04期
8 刘彦呈;;内幕信息认定中的特殊问题[J];法制与社会;2013年06期
9 吕晖;肖伟;;关于内幕信息公开标准的探讨[J];证券市场导报;2013年05期
10 高，
本文编号：2252735
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/jingjifalunwen/2252735.html
