探究内幕交易民事责任之因果关系认定——理论困境、实践现状与路径选择
Exploring the Determination of Causation of Civil Liability for Insider Trading—Theoretical Dilemma, Practical Status and Path Choice

因果关系认定困难，是长期以来内幕交易民事责任裹足不前的重要原因。与虚假陈述、操纵市场等证券欺诈行为相比，内幕交易行为所具有的特性是内幕交易因果关系难以类推传统推定理论的根源。与传统知情权论相比，公平交易权论贴合了内幕交易行为之本质，更加符合内幕交易行为的规制目的。故对内幕交易之规制应跳脱出传统的证券欺诈因果关系判定模型与路径选择，尝试以公平交易权为核心构造内幕交易民事责任因果关系之认定路径。具体而言，可以在借鉴国内外规制实践基础上，在整体上确定事实因果关系和法律因果关系的二分格局，并在利益衡量基础上对事实因果关系与法律因果关系进行精细化处理。在事实因果关系上，应尝试以公平交易权的保护为核心建构内幕交易民事责任之因果关系，以推定因果关系为原则认定事实因果关系；在法律因果关系上，应当在投资者之损失补偿与防止民事赔偿成为投资者之保险的利益平衡基础上，以被告之获益为原则认定法律因果关系。
The difficulty of determining causation is an important reason why civil liability for insider trading has long been at a standstill. Compared with misrepresentation, market manipulation and other securities fraud, insider trading behavior has the characteristics of insider trading causation is difficult to analogize the root cause of the traditional presumption theory. Compared with the traditional right to know theory, the right to fair trade theory fits the essence of insider trading behavior, more in line with the regulatory purpose of insider trading behavior. Therefore, the regulation of insider trading should jump out of the traditional securities fraud causation model and path selection, and try to construct the causation path of civil liability for insider trading with the fair trading right as the core. Specifically, in the light of domestic and foreign regulatory practice based on the overall determination of factual causation and legal causation of the dichotomy pattern, and in the interests of measuring the factual causation and legal causation on the basis of the refinement of the treatment. In terms of factual causation, an attempt should be made to construct the causation of civil liability for insider trading with the protection of the right to fair trade as the core, and the factual causation should be recognized as the principle of presumption of causation; in terms of legal causation, legal causation should be recognized as the principle of the defendant’s benefit, on the basis of the balance of interests between compensating the investor’s loss and preventing the civil damages from becoming the investor’s insurance.