Research On Cognizance Of Causality Of False Statements In Securities Market

Based on the rapid development of the securities market and the full implementation of the registration system,the false declaration of securities has developed in recent years.The lawsuits in the case of the lawsuit have especially tested the Supreme People's Court's false statement on the trial of the securities market in February 2003.Whether the Several Provisions for Civil Compensation Cases(hereinafter referred to as "Several Provisions")can still adapt to the current judicial environment for false statement disputes.As a kind of infringement dispute,the false statement of securities may be presumed according to the "Several Provisions",but the presumptions contained in it are controversial in both academic circles and judicial practice.Through the case analysis method,this paper collects 275 final judgments and analyzes them.Firstly,it clarifies the core disputes in the judicial judgment on the causality determination of securities false statements,and then the applicable scope and presumption interval of the causal relationship presumed from the core disputes.At various points in time,the defense and defense conditions are used to study the dilemma faced by the use of causality presumption in the current judicial discretion.Finally,the reasons for the formation of the dilemma are analyzed and combined with the interpretation of the legislative objectives of the "Several Provisions" to find a corresponding solution.Program.Through research,it is found that there are problems such as the lack of uniformity in the determination of the presumption of the scope of the false statement of the securities false statement in China,the lack of uniformity in the determination of the disclosure date or the date of the disclosure,the determination of the judicial discretion of the system risk,and the absence of the misleading false statement rule.By clarifying the legislative purpose of the "Several Provisions" and the current dilemma of judicial discretion,and then reflecting on the deficiencies of the legal provisions,explore the key issues in the judicial application.In the third part and the fourth part,the article analyzes the jurisprudence and the causes of the related issues through the analysis of legal analysis and judicial practice.First,under the premise that the law has already applied the presumption of causality,explore the investor investment intervals that are consistent with the legislative protection purposes of the “Several Provisions” but are excluded from the application of causality,and then analyze the “Several Provisions” to exclude the investment range.Irrationality outside the scope of application of causality.Secondly,for the disclosure date or the positive date that is presumed to be causal,whether it is the media's first disclosure date or the disclosure of the regulatory agency's investigation notice date or the disclosure of the administrative penalty decision date,there are cases in which the “Several Provisions” are disclosed.The date or the requirements of the day and day are stipulated,but there is no specific law on which the criteria should be determined.The author seeks the confirmation of appropriate judicial application by sorting out the opinions of the judges in the judicial system and exploring the legislative intent of the "Several Provisions".Expose the standard of the day or the date of the day.Thirdly,the systemic risk defense is the most commonly used defense argument for the false statement.The law does not clarify what is the systemic risk and how to identify the systemic risk,so that the judge's way of identifying the system risk is ambiguous in judicial practice.Severe cases of different judgments on the same case,based on this,it is necessary to explore operational system risk identification methods to standardize judicial discretion.In addition,the trapping and lure are the manifestations of false statements.The "Several Provisions" is not reasonable in the current environment for the application of the causal relationship to exclude the trapping type.The judicial environment urgently needs the deductive false statement.The relevant laws and regulations regulate it,thereby protecting the legitimate rights and interests of investors.Through in-depth analysis of the above problems,this paper clarifies its internal logic,combines the research results of predecessors,and proposes feasible suggestions for solving the above problems,with a view to improving the environment of China's securities market,protecting the legitimate rights and interests of investors and listed companies,and unifying judicial decisions.Standards to reduce litigation disputes.