论文部分内容阅读
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。
Futures insider trading behavior and the disclosure of futures insider information behavior is not the same behavior, the two can be from the concept, legislation, recognition and so on to make a distinction. Conceptually, the two are interdependent and independent. From a legislative standpoint, none of the existing laws in our country explicitly stipulate the civil liability of both, and only provide for the administrative responsibility and criminal responsibility of both. In terms of identification and composition, the two are different in the three aspects of actors, insider information and behavior. From the inside and outside the “Insider Information” definition of the more informed, our country “insider insider ” narrow scope of the legislation, the lack of provisions on related parties and specialists. By comparison, it helps to clarify the line between futures insider trading and the disclosure of futures insider information, clarify the difference between the two and related concepts such as “rat storehouse” and securities insider trading, and improve our futures legal system.