论中国证券监管的回应性转向——基于新《证券法》实施后违规减持第一案的观察

江西财经大学学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 0 ›› Issue (6): 114-127.

论中国证券监管的回应性转向——基于新《证券法》实施后违规减持第一案的观察

王怡丞

武汉大学法学院,湖北武汉 430072

收稿日期:2023-06-17 修回日期:2023-09-06 出版日期:2023-11-25 发布日期:2023-12-04
作者简介:王怡丞,武汉大学博士研究生,主要从事商法、金融法研究,联系方式wangyc0212@163.com。
基金资助:
国家社会科学基金重大项目“我国资本市场制度型开放的法律体系构建研究”（22&ZD204）

On the Responsive Turn of China’s Securities Regulation: Observation Based on the First Case of Illegal Reduction after the Implementation of the New Securities Law

WANG Yi-cheng

Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China

Received:2023-06-17 Revised:2023-09-06 Online:2023-11-25 Published:2023-12-04

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 中国证券监管机构在上海瀛翊案中的监管路径转换缘于“零容忍”的政策背景、既有行为监管效果不佳和民事诉讼救济不显的实践需求,反映了“命令—控制”的威慑监管策略。此次路径转换中对行为性质的突破认定已然违背了信息披露和股份转让限制的规则意旨和价值导向,彰显了基于威慑策略的监管模式所具有的执法随机性、过度惩罚倾向和对立关系预设等内在局限。回应性监管理论摆脱了“以惩戒强威慑”的单一思路,致力于构建合作关系,能够提升监管效能,可作为中国证券监管改革的依托。但在其本土化过程中需妥当处理其与中国证券监管本土资源的扞格,避免导向监管俘获与实质的监管放松。发挥回应性监管的正向作用,提高中国证券监管的科学性与有效性,需立足中国资本市场的现实需求,推动自律监管者的主体意识与能力塑造,优化合作型行政监管工具,保障证券执法威慑强度。

关键词: 持股承诺, 路径转换, 证券监管, 威慑性监管, 回应性监管

Abstract: CSRC shifted the regulatory path in the Yingyi case of Shanghai because of the policy background of “zero tolerance”, which reveals the practical requirements against the poor effectiveness of the existing behavior regulation and the lack of relief in civil compensation litigation, reflecting the deterrent regulatory strategy of “command-control”. The breakthrough in identifying the nature of behavior in this path shift has already violated the rules and values of information disclosure and share transfer restrictions, highlighting the inherent limitations of the regulatory model based on deterrence strategy, such as the randomness of law enforcement, the tendency to excessive punishment, and the presupposition of antagonistic relationships. The responsive regulation theory breaks away from the single idea of “strengthening deterrence with punishment”, and is committed to building cooperative relationships, which can improve the regulatory efficiency and serve as a basis for China’s securities regulatory reform. However, in the process of its localization, it is necessary to properly handle the incompatibility between it and the local resources of China’s securities regulation, so as to avoid oriented regulatory capture and substantive regulatory relaxation. To play the positive role of the responsive regulation and improve the scientificity and effectiveness of China’s securities regulation, it is necessary to base on the actual needs of China’s capital market, promote the subjective consciousness and ability building of the self-disciplined regulators, optimize the cooperative administrative regulation tools, and ensure the deterrent strength of securities law enforcement.

Key words: shareholding commitment, path switch, securities regulation, deterrent regulation, responsive regulation

中图分类号:

D922.287

王怡丞. 论中国证券监管的回应性转向——基于新《证券法》实施后违规减持第一案的观察[J]. 江西财经大学学报, 2023, 0(6): 114-127.

WANG Yi-cheng. On the Responsive Turn of China’s Securities Regulation: Observation Based on the First Case of Illegal Reduction after the Implementation of the New Securities Law[J]. Journal of Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, 2023, 0(6): 114-127.

参考文献

[1] 郭雳. 美国股市“减持”规则的沿革和政策考量[J]. 证券法苑, 2017, (3): 30-34.
[2] 刘俊海. 上市公司股份回购方案的法律性质与规制策略——民法、公司法与证券法的三重维度[J]. 当代法学, 2022, (5): 14-28.
[3] 冯果, 王怡丞. 证券市场虚假陈述中责任人员类型划分的制度逻辑[J]. 法律适用, 2020,(21):36-45.
[4] Easterbrook F.H., Fischel D. R. Mandatory Disclosure and the Protection of Investors[J]. Virginia Law Review, 1984, 70(4): 669-715.
[5] 徐文鸣, 刘圣琦. 新《证券法》视域下信息披露“重大性”标准研究[J]. 证券市场导报, 2020,(9): 70-78.
[6] 叶林. 证券交易所在减持股份上的自律监管[J]. 证券法苑, 2017, (3): 1-4.
[7] Baker A.C. Single-Firm Event Studies, Securities Fraud, and Financial Crisis-Problems of Inference[J]. Stanford Law Review, 2016, 68(5): 1207-1262.
[8] 马其家, 王淼. 上市公司及其关联方公开承诺履行制度的构建[J]. 法律适用, 2015,(8): 32-38.
[9] 廖升. 虚假陈述侵权责任之侵权行为认定[J]. 法学家, 2017,(1): 134-145+179.
[10] Becker G.S., Stigler G. J. Law Enforcement, Malfeasance, and Compensation of Enforcers[J]. The Journal of Legal Studies, 1974, 3(1): 1-18.
[11] 应松年, 冯健. 行政罚款制度的困境及其破解——以证券行政处罚为例[J]. 求索, 2021,(1): 141-150.
[12] Kagan R.A. How Much Do National Styles of Law Matter?[M]// Kagan R. A., Axelrad L. (eds.) Regulatory Encounters: Multinational Corporations and American Adversarial Legalism, Berkeley. CA: University of California Press, 2000a.
[13] Kagan R.A. The Consequences of Adversarial Legalism[M]// Kagan R. A., Axelrad L. (eds.) Regulatory Encounters: Multinational Corporations and American Adversarial Legalism, Berkeley. CA: University of California Press, 2000b.
[14] Sherman L.W. Defiance, Deterrence, and Irrelevance: A Theory of the Criminal Sanction[J]. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1993, 30(4): 445-473.
[15] Lodge M.I., Ayres, Braithwaite J., Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate[M]// Balla S. J., Lodge M., Page E. C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration, New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
[16] Ayres I., Braithwaite J.Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
[17] 宋华琳. 论政府规制中的合作治理[J]. 政治与法律, 2016,(8): 14-23.
[18] Coglianese C., Mendelson E.Meta-Regulation and Self-Regulation[M]// Baldwin R., Cave M., Lodge M. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook on Regulation, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
[19] Gunningham N., Sinclair D.Smart Regulation[M]// Drahos P. (eds.) Regulatory Theory: Foundations and Applications, ANU Press, 2017.
[20] 徐国冲. 合作治理研究的理论脉络及其发展[J]. 厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2022, (6): 28-39.
[21] Freeman J.Collaborative Governance in the Administrative State[J]. UCLA Law Review, 1997, 45(1): 1-98.
[22] Braithwaite J.The Essence of Responsive Regulation[J]. U.B.C. Law Review, 2011, 44(3): 475-520.
[23] Ford C.Macro and Micro-Level Effects on Responsive Financial Regulation[J]. U.B.C. Law Review, 2011, 44(3):589-626.
[24] 王锡锌. 规则、合意与治理——行政过程中ADR适用的可能性与妥当性研究[J]. 法商研究, 2003,(5): 67-76.
[25] 周天舒. 证监会对内幕信息传递人的选择性执法研究——以2011年至2015年内幕交易案件为样本[J]. 北方法学, 2017, (5): 40-52.
[26] Andersen L.B., Boesen A., Pedersen L. H. Performance in Public Organizations: Clarifying the Conceptual Space[J]. Public Administration Review, 2016, 76(6): 852-862.
[27] 冯果. 夯实资本市场诚信建设的法治基石[J]. 证券法苑, 2021, (4): 12-23.
[28] 杨炳霖. 回应性监管理论述评: 精髓与问题[J]. 中国行政管理, 2017,(4): 131-136.
[29] 章志远. 迈向公私合作型行政法[J]. 法学研究, 2019, (2): 137-153.
[30] 王瑞雪. 治理语境下的多元行政法[J]. 行政法学研究, 2014,(4): 131-138.
[31] 李洪雷. 走向衰落的自我规制——英国金融服务规制体制改革述评[J]. 行政法学研究, 2016,(3): 41-54.
[32] 吴越, 马洪雨. 证监会与证券交易所监管权配置实证分析[J]. 社会科学, 2008,(5): 88-99+190-191.
[33] 左进玮. 交易所裁量权为中心的股价退市制度构建[J]. 上海金融,2022,(5): 59-69.
[34] 蒋大兴. 隐退中的“权力型”证监会——注册制改革与证券监管权之重整[J]. 法学评论, 2014, (2):39-53.
[35] 张红. 走向“精明”的证券监管[J]. 中国法学, 2017,(6): 149-166.
[36] 徐文鸣. 证券事中事后监管活动的实证分析——基于回应性执法理论的视角[J]. 山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2022,(5): 71-81.
[37] Nielsen V.L., Parker C. Testing Responsive Regulation in Regulatory Enforcement[J]. Regulation & Governance, 2009, 3(4):376-399.
[38] 蔡奕,等. 证券市场监管执法的前沿问题研究: 来自一线监管者的思考[M]. 厦门: 厦门大学出版社,2015.
[39] Avakian S. Protecting Everyday Investors and Preserving Market Integrity: The SEC’s Division of Enforcement[EB/OL] US Securities and Exchange Commission, (2020-09-17)[2023-03-19]. https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/avakian-protecting-everyday-investors-091720.