Securities False Statements Litigation The Burden Of Proof To Share Research

Frequent exposure of large numbers of fraudulent dealings on the stock markets in recent years reveals the unavoidability of such dealings on such markets, mature or immature. False statement is one of the major ways of security fraudulence. And civil responsibilities should be clarified through legal proceedings. In legal proceedings related to false statement, the responsibility of raising evidence is a most critical problem. This paper will discuss the responsibility of proof furnishing.Proving responsibility system is the "backbone of civil litigation. As one of the responsibilities, proving is neither a right nor an obligation, but has a touch of obligation. The birth of proving responsibility is necessarily based on the allegation of the litigant and facts that are to be proved. The paper defines "proving responsibility" in the following manner: people concerned in a case of civil litigation should provide related facts to prove the correctness of their allegation. If the related facts they provide cannot prove the correctness of their allegation, or if the related facts are incomplete or in contradiction, then they would face the possibility that no judgment would be made to their advantage. This is a dangerous risk against rightful judgment. This paper indicates that the theory of behavior responsibility differs from the theory of result responsibility in the approach to research. They are of a complementary relationship, and there should be no comparison of their respective advantages and disadvantages.The theory of behavior responsibility varies widely from the theory of result responsibility in the basis of responsibility, behavior condition, whether or not there is responsibility transfer, whether or not responsibilities can be shared by both parties concerned, whether or not responsibilities should be shared in advance by both parties concerned and whether or not responsibilities can be shouldered by agent or representative etc. Subjective proving responsibility must have objective proving responsibility as its basis and premise. Subjective proof-raising responsibility is a projection of the objectiveproof-raising responsibility in the creed of debate.This paper puts forward the idea that each case of civil litigation is an attempt at "proving correct" one's own allegation and an attempt at "proving incorrect" the opponent's allegation. The judge uses evidences to support his heart's belief through inference, and on that basis to use law for judgment. The core of litigation is fact. But since the fact cannot be re-created, therefore the truth that the judge pursues should be "legal truth". That is, the judge, based on no re-created fact and through rational inference, comes to a final judgment on the fact according to the principle of fairness. Prutting does not necessarily need to have it as a precondition that "when the judge has exhausted all possible and legally allowed proving methods but still fails to gain heart's belief. From the angle of judge's neutrality and the principle that the people concerned are free to handle the substantial and procedural right, the paper puts forward the idea that the view of exhausting proving means has in fact fallen the mistake of putting to extreme the probe into a civil case.The paper conducts a review over the German modern theory of proving responsibility, gives a list of all the contributions and defects of various theories, illustrates the contribution made by practice of the US theory of proving responsibility to the sharing of proving responsibilities, and puts forward the idea that the prepositional nature of proving responsibility requires that such share of proving responsibilities should at least be generally applicable to a type of cases of litigation. And yet so far there is still no such a theory of high generalization and extensive application.The paper analyzes the present status in China of sharing proving responsibilities, and is of the opinion that using "whoever files a suit, must raise evidences" as the general principle...