论文部分内容阅读
本文共分三部分。第一部分简要介绍了金融领域中“适当性”的概念以及投资者适当性制度的内涵和框架。第二部分首先指出了我国在实施投资者适当性制度过程中存在的形式化问题;然后分析了产生该问题的原因在于监管者、金融机构和投资者三者之间具有利益冲突,无法将该制度贯彻落实;最后提出应当采用为投资者提供事后救济的方式使适当性制度在实施过程中形成三方利益制衡,利用投资者的力量使该制度得到彻底落实。第三部分首先研究了发达国家在适当性问题上为投资者提供事后救济的方式。英美法国家通过判例将适当性规则纳入到普通法之中,赋予其法律约束力;大陆法国家则运用传统民法理论对该制度加以解释,使违反该制度者承担相应的民事责任。其次分析了在我国现实情况下金融安全和金融自由之间的矛盾,指出维护金融安全的重要性及实施投资者事后救济的必要性。最后结合发达国家经验及我国现实情况研究了在我国提供投资者事后救济的各种可能途径,分析了它们的可行性和局限性,并论述了实践中将会存在的举证责任等问题。
This article is divided into three parts. The first part briefly introduces the concept of “appropriateness ” and the connotation and framework of the system of investor’s appropriateness in the financial field. The second part first points out the formal problems that exist in the process of implementing the system of investor’s appropriateness in our country. Then it analyzes the reason of this problem is that there is a conflict of interest between regulators, financial institutions and investors, Finally, it is proposed that the system of appropriateness should be balanced with the tripartite balance of interests in the process of implementation, and the system should be fully implemented by the power of investors. The third part first studies how developed countries provide investors with ex post relief on the issue of appropriateness. Common law countries in Britain and the United States included their due diligence into the common law through jurisprudence and gave them legal binding force. However, the civil law countries in Continental France explained the system by using the traditional civil law theory, so that those who violated the system assumed the corresponding civil liability. Secondly, it analyzes the contradiction between financial security and financial freedom under the reality of our country, points out the importance of safeguarding financial security and the necessity of implementing investors’ relief afterwards. At last, combining the experience of developed countries and the reality of our country, this paper studies various possible ways of providing investors with after-service relief in our country, analyzes their feasibility and limitations, and discusses the problems of the burden of proof in practice.