我國證券交易法中，有關內線交易行為人之認定上，主要係規範於證券交易法§157-1第一項。惟其中同項第五款，關於消息受領人之規定，其適用範圍一直以來都被學者所討論，而於實務上適用後之結果，往往因為範圍過於寬廣，或是其他種種可能而造成之不合理情形而被學者所詬病；再者，關於證券交易法§171第二項之關於犯罪所得金額達一億元之客觀加重處罰條件規定部分，學說及實務上，也有許多因此衍伸出來之爭辯存在，而使得法律在適用結果上有所出入並產生疑慮與爭議，也使一般民眾無所適從，對於此法律規範容易失去信心 又由於，內線交易行為人之認定乃內線交易犯罪所得金額計算之前一階段的認定行為，而與內線交易犯罪所得金額之計算具有密切關連性，加上我國實務及學說對於內線交易共同正犯之犯罪所得金額應否合併計算之問題，亦未有定論。是故，本文試圖從從內線交易行為人認定之內線交易認定第一階段之部分切入，再將之帶入共同正犯之內線交易犯罪所得金額應否合併計算問題，而提供此兩個學界爭論已久之問題一個新的綜合觀察角度。;The definition of perpetrator and tippee in insider trading is described respectively in 《Securities Exchange Act》§ 157-1 paragraph 1 and § 157-1 paragraph 1 subparagraph 5 in Taiwan. Since the definition of tippee is indistinct, the application scope of tippee has long been discussed; and the application result of that rule often remains controversial in practice. Besides, in 《Securities Exchange Act》§ 171 paragraph 2, the part concerning the calculation of proceeds of crime, has the same problem as tippee. As a result, people get confused easily when confronting cases involving these kind of rules. What’s even worse, the inconsistency between rule definition and application makes it hard for people to believe in legal system. In practice, there is a sequential order between the recognition of perpetrators and the calculation of proceeds of crime. In addition, whether the amount of proceeds of crime should take that of accomplice into account or not still remain undecided. In view of that, this paper first discusses the recognition problem of perpetrators, next determine the proceeds of crime issue, hoping to provide this longstanding law debate with a brand new perspective.
