法律翻译 | 萨尔曼诉美国案：金钱是认定亲属间内幕交易的必备条件？

译者 | 胡孝芸 武汉大学

一审 | 岳文豪 上海交通大学

二审 | 王槐语 上海交通大学

编辑 | 吴   萌 上海外国语大学

         仲飞宇 西安外国语大学

责编 | 李   薇 浙江工商大学

Salman v. United States, 580 U.S.(2016)¹

萨尔曼诉美国案

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Rule 10b–5 prohibit undisclosed trading on inside corporate information by persons bound by a duty of trust and confidence not to exploit that information for their personal advantage. These persons are also forbidden from tipping inside information to others for trading. A tippee who receives such information with the knowledge that its disclosure breached the tipper’s duty acquires that duty and may be liable for securities fraud for any undisclosed trading on the information. In Dirks v.SEC,463 U.S. 646, this Court explained that tippee liability hinges on whether the tipper’s disclosure breaches a fiduciary duty, which occurs when the tipper discloses the information for a personal benefit. The Court also held that a personal benefit may be inferred where the tipper receives something of value in exchange for the tip or “makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend.”

美国1934年《证券交易法》（Securities Exchange Act）的第10（b）条和《证监会规则》（Securities and Exchange Commission’s Rule）第10-b条规定，禁止对公司内幕信息负有信赖和保密义务的人员就此类信息进行未披露的交易，或利用该信息谋取个人利益。这些人员同样不得向他人泄露内幕信息以用于交易。若获取内幕信息者在明知披露信息违背泄露者之义务的情况下收到该信息，即获得与泄露者相同的义务；若其利用该信息进行任何未披露的交易，则可能承担证券欺诈责任。在Dirks诉美国证监会案（以下简称Dirks案）中，法院认为，获取内幕信息者的责任取决于泄露者的信息泄露是否违反了诚信义务，即信息泄露之目的是否为谋取个人利益。法院还认为，当泄露者收取有价物品作为信息泄露的交换，或者“向从事交易的亲友赠送机密信息”时，即可推断泄露者的目的是谋取个人利益。

（图片来源于网络）

Petitioner Salman was indicted for federal securities-fraud crimes for trading on inside information he received from a friend and relative-by-marriage, Michael Kara, who, in turn, received the information from his brother, Maher Kara, a former investment banker at Citigroup. Maher testified at Salman’s trial that he shared inside information with his brother Michael to benefit him and expected him to trade on it, and Michael testified to sharing that information with Salman, who knew that it was from Maher. Salman was convicted.

上诉人Salman因其证券内幕交易行为被指控犯有联邦证券欺诈罪。Salman的内幕信息来自一位朋友，同时也是其姻亲，Michael Kara。Michael的信息则来自其兄弟Maher Kara。Maher Kara是花旗集团的前投资银行家。Maher在Salman的审判中作证，他与兄弟Michael分享内幕信息是为了让他获利，并且期待他能利用该信息进行交易。Michael也作证，表示自己向Salman分享了该信息，且Salman知道该信息来自Maher。Salmon因此被定罪。

While Salman’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit was pending, the Second Circuit decided that Dirks does not permit a factfinder to infer a personal benefit to the tipper from a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend, unless there is “proof of a meaningfully close personal relationship” between tipper and tippee “that generates an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature.” The Ninth Circuit declined to follow Newman so far, holding that Dirks allowed Salman’s jury to infer that the tipper breached a duty because he made “ ‘a gift of confidential information to a trading relative.’ ”

在Salman向第九巡回法院提出的上诉待决期间，第二巡回法院在判决中认定，Dirks案并不允许陪审团仅仅根据“泄露者向从事交易的亲友赠送机密信息”这一事实即认定泄露者谋取个人利益，除非能证明泄露者和获取内幕信息者之间“存在有意义的私人亲近关系”，从而“导致客观的、后果性的、至少代表金钱或类似有价值性质之潜在收益的交换”（Newman案）。但第九巡回法院拒绝遵循Newman案的判决，理由是Dirks案允许Salman案的陪审团推断泄露者违反诚信义务，因为其向从事交易的亲属赠送了机密信息。

（图片来源于网络）

Does the personal benefit to the insider that is necessary to establish insider trading require proof of pecuniary benefit, or does a close family relationship between the insider and the tippee suffice where the tipper acts to aid the tippee?

认定内幕交易的必要条件，即内幕人是否获取了个人利益时，是否必须证明存在金钱利益？还是只要证明泄露者和获取内幕信息者之间存在亲近的家庭关系，泄露者的行为是为了帮助获取内幕信息者进行投资，便足以认定？

We adhere to Dirks, which easily resolves the narrow issue presented here.

我们遵循Dirks案，该案可以轻松解决本案中的具体问题。

In Dirks, we explained that a tippee is exposed to liability for trading on inside information only if the tippee participates in a breach of the tipper’s fiduciary duty. Whether the tipper breached that duty depends “in large part on the purpose of the disclosure” to the tippee. “The test,” we explained, “is whether the insider personally will benefit, directly or indirectly, from his disclosure.” Thus, the disclosure of confidential information without personal benefit is not enough. In determining whether a tipper derived a personal benefit, we instructed courts to “focus on objective criteria, i.e., whether the insider receives a direct or indirect personal benefit from the disclosure, such as a pecuniary gain or a reputational benefit that will translate into future earnings.” This personal benefit can “often” be inferred “from objective facts and circumstances,” we explained, such as “a relationship between the insider and the recipient that suggests a quid pro quo from the latter, or an intention to benefit the particular recipient.” In particular, we held that “the elements of fiduciary duty and exploitation of nonpublic information also exist when an insider makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend.” In such cases, “the tip and trade resemble trading by the insider followed by a gift of the profits to the recipient.” We then applied this gift-giving principle to resolve Dirks itself, finding it dispositive that the tippers “received no monetary or personal benefit” from their tips to Dirks, “nor was their purpose to make a gift of valuable information to Dirks.”

在Dirks案中，本院解释，获取内幕信息者只有在参与了泄露者违反诚信义务行为的情况下，才可能承担内幕交易的责任。泄露者是否违反该责任在很大程度上取决于向获取内幕信息者“泄露信息的目的”。本院解释道：“检验标准是泄露者是否直接或间接从其泄密行为中获取个人利益。”因此，仅泄露机密信息而不谋取个人利益不足以认定为内幕交易。在决定泄露者是否获取个人利益时，我们要求法院“关注客观标准，即内幕人员是否因泄密获得了直接或间接的个人利益，例如金钱利益或未来能转化为收入的名誉利益”。本院认为这种个人利益“通常”可以“从客观事实和情境中”推断出来，例如“内幕人和获取内幕信息者之间存在某种关系，表明后者提供了交换条件；或者内幕人有意使特定的获取内幕信息者获益”。特别地，本院认为“在内幕人向从事交易的亲友赠送机密信息的情形中，也存在诚信义务和利用非公开信息的因素”。在这种情况下，泄密与交易的性质类似于内幕人本人进行交易，并将获利赠与获取内幕信息者。我们进一步将这一赠礼原则用于解决Dirks案本身，发现泄露者并未因其向Dirks的泄密而“获得金钱或个人利益”，其目的也不是“向Dirks赠送有价值的信息”，这一点是决定性的。

Our discussion of gift giving resolves this case. Maher, the tipper, provided inside information to a close relative, his brother Michael. Dirks makes clear that a tipper breaches a fiduciary duty by making a gift of confidential information to “a trading relative,” and that rule is sufficient to resolve the case at hand. As Salman’s counsel acknowledged at oral argument, Maher would have breached his duty had he personally traded on the information here himself then given the proceeds as a gift to his brother. It is obvious that Maher would personally benefit in that situation. But Maher effectively achieved the same result by disclosing the information to Michael, and allowing him to trade on it. Dirks appropriately prohibits that approach, as well. Cf. 463 U. S., at 659 (holding that “insiders [are] forbidden” both “from personally using undisclosed corporate information to their advantage” and from “giving such information to an outsider for the same improper purpose of exploiting the information for their personal gain”). Dirks specifies that when a tipper gives inside information to “a trading relative or friend,” the jury can infer that the tipper meant to provide the equivalent of a cash gift. In such situations, the tipper benefits personally because giving a gift of trading information is the same thing as trading by the tipper followed by a gift of the proceeds. Here, by disclosing confidential information as a gift to his brother with the expectation that he would trade on it, Maher breached his duty of trust and confidence to Citigroup and its clients—a duty Salman acquired, and breached himself, by trading on the information with full knowledge that it had been improperly disclosed.

我们上述就赠礼所作的讨论解决了本案。泄露者Maher向其近亲Michael提供了内幕信息。Dirks案明确了泄露者向“从事交易的亲属”赠送机密信息是违反诚信义务的。该规则足以解决当前案件。Salman的辩护律师在法庭辩论中承认，如果Maher本人利用案涉信息进行交易，并将所得利益赠与其兄弟，则Maher违反了其义务。很明显，在这种情况下，Maher获取了个人利益。然而Maher通过向Michael泄露信息并允许其利用该信息交易，有效地达到了同样的结果。相比之下，根据463 U. S.案，内幕人不仅不得私自利用未披露的公司信息为己谋利，还不得将该信息泄露给外部人，以同样达到利用该信息谋取个人利益的不当目的。Dirks案明确了当泄露者向从事交易的亲友提供内幕信息时，陪审团可以推断泄露者意图赠与后者相当的金钱利益。在此情形下，泄露者也获得了个人利益，因为赠送交易信息无异于泄露者本人根据信息进行交易，并赠与亲属利益。在本案中，Maher向兄弟赠送机密信息并期待其利用信息进行交易，违反了对花旗集团及其客户的信赖和保密义务——Salman也负有且违反了此义务，因为他明知此信息已被不当泄露，仍利用信息进行交易。

（图片来源于网络）

To the extent the Second Circuit held that the tipper must also receive something of a “pecuniary or similarly valuable nature” in exchange for a gift to family or friends, we agree with the Ninth Circuit that this requirement is inconsistent with Dirks.

第二巡回法院在Newman案判决中认为，作为向从事交易的亲戚提供信息的对价，泄露者必须收到“金钱或者具备类似价值性质”的物品；我们支持第九巡回法院的观点，认为这与Dirks案不符。

Salman points out that many insider-trading cases—including several that Dirks cited—involved insiders who personally profited through the misuse of trading information. But this observation does not undermine the test Dirks articulated and applied. Salman also cites a sampling of our criminal-fraud decisions construing other federal fraud statutes, suggesting that they stand for the proposition that fraud is not consummated unless the defendant obtains money or property. Assuming that these cases are relevant to our construction of §10(b) (a proposition the Government forcefully disputes), nothing in them undermines the commonsense point we made in Dirks. Making a gift of inside information to a relative like Michael is little different from trading on the information, obtaining the profits, and doling them out to the trading relative. The tipper benefits either way. The facts of this case illustrate the point: In one of their tipper-tippee interactions, Michael asked Maher for a favor, declined Maher’s offer of money, and instead requested and received lucrative trading information.

Salman提出，很多内幕交易案件——包括Dirks案中引用的几个案件——都涉及内幕人滥用交易信息获取个人利益的情形。然而这不足以动摇Dirks案中确立并适用的标准。Salman还引用了本院解释其他联邦欺诈法律时作出的刑事欺诈判决作为例子，表示这些判决都支持若被告人不获得金钱或财产，则欺诈不能成立。假设这些案件都和第10（b）条的应用相关（政府对这一主张提出有力质疑），这些案件也无法动摇Dirks案中的常识性观点。向Michael这样的亲属赠送内幕信息，几乎等同于利用该信息进行交易、获得利益并赠予亲属。泄露者使用任何一种方式均可获利。本案事实已经证明，在作为泄露者和获取内幕信息者的互动中，Michael请求Maher为自己提供便利，但拒绝了其提供的金钱，转而要求并获得了有利可图的交易信息。

We reject Salman’s argument that Dirks’s gift-giving standard is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case. Dirks created a simple and clear “guiding principle” for determining tippee liability, and Salman has not demonstrated that either §10(b) itself or the Dirks gift-giving standard “leave grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime” or are plagued by “hopeless indeterminacy.” At most, Salman shows that in some factual circumstances assessing liability for gift-giving will be difficult. That alone cannot render “shapeless” a federal criminal prohibition, for even clear rules “produce close cases.” We also reject Salman’s appeal to the rule of lenity, as he has shown “no grievous ambiguity or uncertainty that would trigger the rule’s application.” To the contrary, Salman’s conduct is in the heartland of Dirks’s rule concerning gifts. It remains the case that “determining whether an insider personally benefits from a particular disclosure, a question of fact, will not always be easy for courts.” But there is no need for us to address those difficult cases today, because this case involves “precisely the ‘gift of confidential information to a trading relative’ that Dirks envisioned.” 

Salman主张，将Dirks案赠礼原则的标准适用于本案具有模糊性并可能违宪，本院对此予以驳回。Dirks案就确立泄露者责任问题建立了简单而清晰的“指导原则”，且Salman未阐明第10（b）条本身或Dirks案的赠礼原则“在如何评估犯罪风险方面存在严重的不可靠性”，或受到“无望的不确定性”的困扰。Salman最多能够表明，在某些情况下，分析赠送机密信息的责任存在难度。这本身不能使联邦刑事禁令“形同虚设”，因为即使清晰的规则也会“产生悬而未决的案件”。我们也驳回Salman关于“存疑有利被告”的请求，因为他并未证明存在“足以触发该规则的严重的模糊性或不确定性”。相反，Salman的行为可以完全涵摄于Dirks案中关于赠送机密信息的规则。现在的情况仍然是，“泄露者是否从特定泄密行为中获取个人利益，这是一个事实认定问题，对法院来说并不总是那么容易”。然而在此不必解决那些困难案件，因为本案所涉及的正是“Dirks案预设的‘向从事交易的亲属赠送机密信息’的情形”。

（图片来源于网络）

原文链接：https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/580/15-628/

【注 释】

[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/580/15-628/

[2] https://ersp.lib.whu.edu.cn/s/org/heinonline/G.https/HOL/Page?public=true&handle=hein.journals/prvw44&div=7&start_page=11&collection=abajournals&set_as_cursor=39&men_tab=srchresults