Att dansa kring guldkalven: En studie av den svenska kriminaliseringen av insiderhandel och dess berättigande
(2014) JURM02 20141Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Insiderhandel, som är en kriminaliserad gärning i Sverige, innebär förenklat att en person med insiderinformation, alltså information som inte är offentliggjord eller allmänt känd, använder informationen för att göra en vinst eller undvika en förlust vid en transaktion av ett finansiellt instrument på värdepappersmarknaden. För att en kriminalisering av en viss handling ska anses berättigad, alltså rättssäker, måste primärt fyra kriminaliseringsprinciper beaktas av lagstiftaren. Skadeprincipen kräver att den kriminaliserade handlingen ska vara skadlig. Subsidiaritetsprincipen kräver att andra rättsliga lösningar för att stävja handlingen än kriminalisering beaktas ex ante och att kriminaliseringen ska vara effektiv för det fall att den... (More)
- Insiderhandel, som är en kriminaliserad gärning i Sverige, innebär förenklat att en person med insiderinformation, alltså information som inte är offentliggjord eller allmänt känd, använder informationen för att göra en vinst eller undvika en förlust vid en transaktion av ett finansiellt instrument på värdepappersmarknaden. För att en kriminalisering av en viss handling ska anses berättigad, alltså rättssäker, måste primärt fyra kriminaliseringsprinciper beaktas av lagstiftaren. Skadeprincipen kräver att den kriminaliserade handlingen ska vara skadlig. Subsidiaritetsprincipen kräver att andra rättsliga lösningar för att stävja handlingen än kriminalisering beaktas ex ante och att kriminaliseringen ska vara effektiv för det fall att den tillgrips. Proportionalitetsprincipen kräver att den rättsliga lösning som tillämpas ska vara den minst ingripande för individen. Legalitetsprincipen kräver att den kriminaliserande lagstiftningen ska vara förutsebar, d.v.s. bestämd och begriplig till sin utformning.
Att kriminalisera insiderhandel i allmänhet kan anses vara berättigat. Enligt skadeprincipen kan insiderhandel anses utgöra ett direkt hot mot värdepappersmarknaden, som är en integrerad del av skyddsintresset ekonomisk trygghet. Om subsidiaritetsprincipen och proportionalitetsprincipen beaktas genom utredningar av andra alternativ än kriminalisering ex ante kan dessa också anses uppfyllda. Legalitetsprincipen kan tillgodoses genom en lagstiftning som innehåller preciserade legaldefinitioner och är tydlig i övrigt.
Den svenska kriminaliseringen av insiderhandel kan emellertid inte anses vara berättigad, eftersom kriminaliseringsprinciperna inte uppfylls i tillräckligt stor utsträckning. Utredningen som föregick den svenska insiderregleringen beaktade varken skadeprincipen, subsidiaritetsprincipen eller proportionalitetsprincipen ex ante i nämnvärd mån. Dessutom indikerar en statistisk undersökning ex post av insiderregleringen att regleringen inte är särskilt effektiv, vilket innebär att subsidiaritetsprincipens krav på effektivitet inte är uppfyllt. Legalitetsprincipen har heller inte uppfyllts, eftersom insiderregleringens legaldefinitioner och insiderförbud är så svårtolkade att förutsebarhet omöjliggörs. (Less) - Abstract
- Insider trading, which constitutes a crime in Sweden, refers to the act where a person with inside information, ergo non-public information, utilizes that information for making a profit or avoiding a loss in a transaction of a financial instrument on the stock market. For a criminalization of a certain act to be justified, in other words respecting the rule of law, primarily four principles of criminalization need to be taken into account by the legislator. The harm principle requires the criminalized act to be harmful. The principle of subsidiarity requires that legal means to suppress the act in question other than criminalization are considered ex ante, and that the criminalization is effective if applied. The principle of... (More)
- Insider trading, which constitutes a crime in Sweden, refers to the act where a person with inside information, ergo non-public information, utilizes that information for making a profit or avoiding a loss in a transaction of a financial instrument on the stock market. For a criminalization of a certain act to be justified, in other words respecting the rule of law, primarily four principles of criminalization need to be taken into account by the legislator. The harm principle requires the criminalized act to be harmful. The principle of subsidiarity requires that legal means to suppress the act in question other than criminalization are considered ex ante, and that the criminalization is effective if applied. The principle of proportionality requires the legal mean applied to be the least burdensome for the individual. The principle of legality requires the criminal law to be predictable, which means that its formulation must be precise and comprehensible.
The criminalization of insider trading in general could be considered justified. According to the harm principle, insider trading can be seen as a direct threat against the stock market, which is an integrated part of the legitimate interest of economic safety in society. If the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of proportionality are respected by investigations ex ante of other legal means than criminalization, they could also be satisfied. The principle of legality can be fulfilled by enacting a law that stipulates precise legal definitions and is clear in general.
The Swedish criminalization of insider trading however, is not justified, since the principles of criminalization have not been sufficiently respected. The investigations that preceded the Swedish regulation of insider trading did not consider the harm principle, the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of proportionality to a sufficient extent. Moreover, a statistical study of the insider regulation ex post indicates that the regulation is not particularly efficient, which means that the requirement of efficiency stipulated by the principle of subsidiarity is not satisfied. Nor has the principle of legality been fulfilled, since the legal definitions and the provisions prohibiting insider trading are so difficult to interpret, that it makes predictability impossible. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4451180
- author
- Starfelt, Henrik LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- To dance around the golden calf: A study of the Swedish criminalization of insider trading and its justification
- course
- JURM02 20141
- year
- 2014
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4451180
- date added to LUP
- 2014-06-12 09:00:51
- date last changed
- 2014-06-12 09:00:51
@misc{4451180,
abstract = {{Insider trading, which constitutes a crime in Sweden, refers to the act where a person with inside information, ergo non-public information, utilizes that information for making a profit or avoiding a loss in a transaction of a financial instrument on the stock market. For a criminalization of a certain act to be justified, in other words respecting the rule of law, primarily four principles of criminalization need to be taken into account by the legislator. The harm principle requires the criminalized act to be harmful. The principle of subsidiarity requires that legal means to suppress the act in question other than criminalization are considered ex ante, and that the criminalization is effective if applied. The principle of proportionality requires the legal mean applied to be the least burdensome for the individual. The principle of legality requires the criminal law to be predictable, which means that its formulation must be precise and comprehensible.
The criminalization of insider trading in general could be considered justified. According to the harm principle, insider trading can be seen as a direct threat against the stock market, which is an integrated part of the legitimate interest of economic safety in society. If the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of proportionality are respected by investigations ex ante of other legal means than criminalization, they could also be satisfied. The principle of legality can be fulfilled by enacting a law that stipulates precise legal definitions and is clear in general.
The Swedish criminalization of insider trading however, is not justified, since the principles of criminalization have not been sufficiently respected. The investigations that preceded the Swedish regulation of insider trading did not consider the harm principle, the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of proportionality to a sufficient extent. Moreover, a statistical study of the insider regulation ex post indicates that the regulation is not particularly efficient, which means that the requirement of efficiency stipulated by the principle of subsidiarity is not satisfied. Nor has the principle of legality been fulfilled, since the legal definitions and the provisions prohibiting insider trading are so difficult to interpret, that it makes predictability impossible.}},
author = {{Starfelt, Henrik}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Att dansa kring guldkalven: En studie av den svenska kriminaliseringen av insiderhandel och dess berättigande}},
year = {{2014}},
}