The legislative necessity for affirmative defense of insider trading in Taiwan.

Taiwan set the insider trading for a long time. However, we still can hear some criminal cases of insider trading somrtimes. The main reason might be the conviction rate is too low to intimidate the insiders. In order to slove this problem, we amended the law and want to block the insiders strickly. The stringent law formulate the insider will be guilty once he/she being a knowing possession and trade the stock in the same time. Unfortunately, the range of potential criminals is way too wide so there might be some unfair cases. As a result, the legislators reference the foreign legislation about the defence of insider trading provisions. In this way, the defendens could calim for innocent and overthrow the inference by proving that they are not offending insider trading regulations intentionally.
The defendse prviosions had been discussed when amending the Securities Exchange Act on 2010, however, the provisions are not passed. The conviction rate of insider trading is low in Taiwan, since the reasons of defendece give the defenders a shield, the decision for defence provisions should be cautious.
In order to discuss the defence provisions of insider trading, we should start with the insider trading regulations. In this thesis, I will introduce the insider trading regulations of the U.S., the EU, the U.K., Japan, China and Taiwan. And next are the insider trading defence/ exemption regulations in the countries. There are many types of defence provisions, for example, written trading plans, stabilization, takeover, etc. However, there is just one kind of defence regulation in the drft of Securities Exchange Act. This thesis wants to discuss whether the types of defence proviosn are enough in Taiwan by knowing the foreign regulations.
The decision whether the defence provisions should be set also needs to consider about the courts in Taiwan. The defense provisions are preventing the defenders from easily being guilty by on a knowing possession. The provisions are using as a shield for D.A.s’ charge. The court seems not judge insider trading cases by “knowing possession” as an only standar in Taiwan. As a result, the necessity for defense provisions of insider trading in Taiwan is worth to discuss.