The Brief Analysis Of Causality In Securities Fraud

The Several Provisions on the Trial of Civil Compensation Cases Caused by False Statements in the Securities Market does not distinguish the transaction causation and the loss causation in securities false statements.It directly associates false statements with the harm of investors,and puts the burden of proof of to the defendant who should prove evidences for overturning the causation.If the defendant proves to have the relevant circumstances mentioned in Section 19 of The Several Provisions on the Trial of Civil Compensation Cases Caused by False Statements in the Securities Cases Caused by False Statements in the Securities Market,the court should determine that there is no causality.However,it should be recognized that The inevitability of various causal factors in securities misrepresentation cases,especially in the case of "non-disclosure",and the implementation date of the misrepresentation and the disclosure date are relatively long.For example,Baoan Hongji Real Estate Group Co.,Ltd.Securities Misrepresentation Liability Dispute(2015)Yue Gao Fa Min Er Zhong Zi No.1028,failing to disclose the issue of shareholdings;GCL Integrated Technology Co.,Ltd.Securities Misleading Statement Liability Disputes(2017)Su Min Zhong No.1900,within two years,having the defendant Multiple acts of infringement and omission.According to the existing judicial practice,many local courts distinguish "The transaction causation" and "The loss causation" when analyzing Securities Misrepresentation cases.This paper analyzes the historical development of the theory of causality determination in the United States securities trading misrepresentation cases,draws on the judicial practice experience of the United States Securities Misrepresentation cases,and puts forward suggestions for domestic judicial practice.In the first chapter,from the perspective of reviewing the domestic judicial practice,this paper introduces the general situation and development trend of the judicial practice of Securities Misrepresentation,and points out three defects in the provisions,which are: failure to distinguish the causal relationship between transactions and the causal relationship between losses;unclear definition of "loss" for investors in Article 18 of the provisions;failure to consider the defendant in Article 19 of the provisions The difficulty of proof and some problems in judicial practice.At the same time,it also points out some problems in judicial practice,including: paying attention to the identification of "disclosure date" and "systematic risk" not causal analysis passing;misinterpretation of "market fraud theory";not considering the influence of multiple factor combination on investors' decision-making;different rules of systematic risk reduction.Then,from the perspective of the historical development of the trial of securities fraud cases in the United States,the theoretical essence is found from the root,and the limitations of applying the "fraud market theory" are put forward.The author believes that we should return to the perspective of tort liability law and analyze the causal relationship of Securities Misrepresentation cases.The second chapter of this paper,from the perspective of the historical development of the trial of securities fraud cases in the United States,looks for the essence of the theory from the root,that is,the market fraud theory is a theory that simplifies the reliance on proof and facilitates the application of collective action,rather than simply exempting the plaintiff from the burden of proof.The research shows that in the judicial practice of the United States,the proof strength of transaction causality is gradually weakened,and the gate of litigation is closed by strengthening the analysis of loss causality.Based on the experience of judicial practice in the United States,the author analyzes the determination of the causal relationship of Securities Misrepresentation under the influence of complex factors.As the types of Securities Misrepresentation are divided into induced multiple type and induced empty type,and there is no regulation on induced empty type misrepresentation in the United States,the author puts forward the incompensability of the loss through the judicial practice of induced empty type misrepresentation cases in chapter three,so as to correct the separation of the transaction causality and loss causality in practice.At the same time,it also responds to the excessive discussion of the false statements in the academic circles.