| In the tort cases of insider trading,the proof of causation is a big problem.The plaintiff investors usually cannot prove that the loss are caused by the defendant insider traders.At the end of 2015,"Guang Da Security Insider Trading civil compensation case" was the first one that plaintiff investors won the insider trading tort cases.In the case,the court considered that if the investors trade in the opposite direction of the relevant securities transactions with the insider trader during the same period(the contemporaneous traders),the causation between the loss of investors and the behavior of insider trader should be presumed,and the court of second instance also agreed to this presumption.Afterwards,when the academy reviews this jurisprudence,it thinks that it can be used as a reference to establish the causality presumption system,so as to solve the problem of theinfringement of insider trading.However,it questioned the author that if the jurisprudence can be referred to establish the system.This article will discuss on this question.In the first part of the article,the author will analyze the causation presumption in the "Guang Da Security Insider Trading civil compensation case",and explain the error of its analytical logic,and point out its reference to the causation presumption system of American law.In the second part,the author will examine the course of establishing the causation presumption system and its effect in American law,and draw two basis standard of causality presumption system,namely "probability" and "normative meaning".The third part,the author will inspect the "normal connection" standard for the establishment of "contemporaneous trader mode" causation presumption system.The fourth part,the author will inspect the "normative meaning" standard for the establishment of "contemporaneous trader mode" causation presumption system.Finally,it is concluded that the "contemporaneous trader mode" causality presumption system should not be established. |
PDF Full Text Request