본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

미국 증권거래위원회의 증권사기 제재 수단에 대한 고찰 - 불공정거래의 일원적 제재 체계에 대한 문제 의식을 바탕으로

A Study on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Means of Sanctioning Securities Fraud - Based on the awareness of the problem of the unilateral sanctions system for unfair securities trading

최자유
대한변호사협회 (Korean Bar Associtaion)|2022|인권과 정의 (Human Right and Justice)|제505호|pp. 275-294|DOI 10.22999/hraj..505.202205.011

0

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

증권거래위원회부당이득금민사제재금금지 명령유지 명령자산 동결증권사기병행 절차불공정거래불공정거래 과징금Securities and Exchange CommissionInjunctionCivil PenaltyAsset FreezeSecurities FraudUnfair Securities TradingIllicit ProfitCease-and-Desist OrderParallel ProceedingPenalty Surcharge of Unfair Securities Trading
주제분류법학

초록

증권 불공정거래는 통상 한국거래소의 심리·금융당국의 조사·증권선물위원회의 심의와 의결·검찰의 수사와 기소를 통해 혐의가 인정되면 법원이 최종 판단한다. 2022년 5월 현재 자본시장법 개정(안)을 중심으로 불공정거래에 과징금을 전면 도입하기 위한 논의가 진행되고 있으나 원칙적으로 검찰 수사 후 금융당국의 과징금 부과가 가능한 한계가 있다. 불공정거래 전력자를 증권시장에서 퇴출하는 논의는 시작되지도 않았다. 본 연구는 미국의 증권사기(securities fraud) 제재 수단을 고찰하여 우리나라의 제도 개선 논의를 위한 학술적 기반을 제공하고자 한다. 미국은 증권사기에 형사처벌 외에도 증권거래위원회(The Securities and Exchange Commission; SEC, 이하 ‘SEC’라 함)가 연방지방법원(The Federal District Court) 등에 제재를 청구하거나, 내부 행정법판사(The Administrative Law Judge)의 초기 결정(initial decision)을 토대로 SEC가 직접 제재를 부과할 수 있다. SEC의 제재 수단은 ① 금지 명령(injunctions)·유지(留止) 명령(cease-and-desist orders)·긴급 구제(emergency relief)·직무금지와 영업정지(bars and suspensions)·저가 주식 금지(penny stock bars) 등 비금전적 제재(non-monetary sanctions) ② 부당이득금 추징(disgorgement of illicit profits)·민사제재금 부과(imposition of civil penalties) 등 금전적 제재(monetary sanctions)가 있다. 형사처벌 필요성이 인정되면 SEC 조사와 법무부(Department of Justice) 수사의 병행 절차(parallel proceedings)가 진행되고, 필요성이 인정되지 않으면 증권법 전문성을 갖춘 SEC가 적절한 수단으로 대응한다. SEC의 제재 수단은 1934년 설립 이후 지속 확대되었다. SEC는 증권법을 적극 해석하고 이를 연방법원이 수용하며 판례법이 형성되고, 의회는 입법을 통해 SEC의 증권법 집행을 지원한다. 이를 통해 SEC는 효율적 증권사기 조사·제재에 필요한 권한을 확보한다. 우리나라의 불공정거래 제재 수단은 형사처벌·과징금에 국한되고 불공정거래 전력자를 증권시장에서 퇴출할 수 있는 비금전적 제재 수단은 미비하여, 증권범죄에 적시성·실효성 있는 대응이 어렵다. 불공정거래 근절을 위하여 1차적 조사를 담당하는 금융당국이 다양한 제재 권한을 보유하고 상황에 따라 적절한 대응을 해야 한다. 제도 개선을 위해 미국의 제재 수단을 참고할 필요가 있다.

Abstract

In Korea, in the case of unfair securities trading, the court makes a final judgment if the suspicion is caught through the Korea Exchange’s hearing, the investigation by the financial authorities, the deliberation and resolution of the Securities and Futures Commission, and the investigation and indictment of the prosecutor’s office. As of May 2022, social discussions are underway to introduce a penalty surcharge for unfair securities trading, centering on the revision(draft) of the Capital Markets Act. Discussions on introducing a system to expel those who have engaged in unfair securities trading, such as a ban on the duties of listed companies, from the stock market have not even started. This study intends to provide a theoretical basis for discussing system improvement in Korea by examining the means of sanctions against securities fraud in the United States. In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission(hereinafter referred to as the ‘SEC’) may file civil sanctions in the Federal District Court or directly impose sanctions based on its initial decision by the Administrative Law Judge. The SEC’s civil sanctions are ① non-monetary sanctions, such as injunctions, cease-and-desist orders, emergency relief, bars and suspensions, and penny stock bars ② monetary sanctions, such as disgorgement of illicit profits and imposition of civil penalties. If the necessity of criminal punishment is recognized, parallel proceedings conducted by the SEC investigation and the Department of Justice investigation would proceed. The SEC’s sanctions have been continuously expanded since its establishment in 1934. The SEC actively interprets securities laws and federal courts accept these interpretations. These efforts have formed new case law which enables the SEC to counter securities frauds effectively, and Congress supports the SEC’s enforcement of securities laws through legislation. The SEC secures the necessary authority to investigate and sanction securities fraud through this process. This study examines the development history and characteristics of the SEC’s sanctions measures. In order to eradicate unfair securities trading, the financial authorities in charge of the primary investigation should have various sanctioning powers and take appropriate measures depending on the situation. In Korea, unfair securities trading sanctions are limited to criminal penalties and penalty surcharges, and non-monetary sanctions that can expel former unfair securities traders from the stock market are insufficient, making it challenging to respond in a timely and effective manner to securities crimes. In order to improve the system, it is necessary to refer to the United States sanctions measures.

참고문헌 (54)

  1. Daniel R. Walfish, "SEC Compliance and Enforcement Answer Book 2021" (2021), Practising law institute
  2. Douglas J. Davison, "SEC Compliance and Enforcement Answer Book 2021" (2021), Practising law institute
  3. Harold K. Gordon, "SEC’S balancing act, Financial Penalties Against Corporations", Jones Day, ~ (2007)
  4. Stephen J. Crimmins, "SEC Compliance and Enforcement Answer Book 2021" (2021), Practising law institute
  5. The SEC’s Shift to Administrative Proceedings: An Empirical Assessment, "Adam C. Pritchard", 1~37, pp.Law&Economics Working Papers, Vol. 119 (2016)
  6. Andrew M. Smith, "SEC cease-and-desist orders", Administrative Law Review, 51, pp.1197~1228 (1999)
  7. Arthur B. Laby, "Patterns of SEC Enforcement Under the 1990 Remedies Act : Civil Money Penalties", Albany Law Review, 58, pp.5~53 (1990)
  8. Arthur F. Mathews, "The SEC and Civil Injunctions: It’s Time to Give the Commission an Administrative Cease and Desist Remedy", Securities Regulation Law Journal, 6, pp.345~356 (1979)
  9. Daniel F. Solomon, "Summary of Administrative Law Judge Responsibilities", Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 31, pp.475~525 (2011)
  10. David Rosenfeld, "Civil Penalties Against Public Companies in SEC Enforcement Actions, An Empirical Analysis", University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, 22, pp.135~208 (2019)
  11. George W. Dent, "Ancillary Relief in Federal Securities Law : A study in Federal Remedies", Minnesota Law Review, 67, pp.865~961 (1983)
  12. Gideon Mark, "SEC and CFTC Administrative proceedings", University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 19, pp.45~140 (2016)
  13. Jayne W. Barnard, "The SEC’s Suspension and Bar Powers in Perspective", Tulane Law Review, 76, pp.1253~1273 (2002)
  14. John D. Ellsworth, "Disgorgement in Securities Fraud Action Brought by the SEC", Duke Law Journal, 1977, pp.641~653 (1977)
  15. Jon Carlson, "Securities Fraud, Officer and Director Bars, and the “Unfitness” Inquiry after Sarbanes-Oxley", Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 14, pp.679~708 (2009)
  16. Joseph I. Goldstein, "An Investment Masquerade: A Descriptive Overview of Penny Stock Fraud and The Federal Securities Laws", The Business Lawyer, 47, pp.773~835 (1992)
  17. Marc I. Steinberg, "SEC and Other Permanent Injunctions-Standards for Their Imposition Modification and Dissolution", Cornell Law Review, 66, pp.27~115 (1980)
  18. Mark. d Hunter, "SEC", DOJ parallel proceedings : Comtemplating the Property of Recent Judicial Trends, 2003, pp.68, 149~178
  19. Renee M. Jones, "Unfit for Duty : The Officer and Director Bar as a Remedy for Fraud", University of Cincinnati Law Review, 82, pp.439~464 (2013)
  20. Roberta S. Karmel, "Will Fifty Years of the SEC’s Disgorgement Remedy Be Abolished?", SMU Law Review, 71, pp.799~810 (2018)
  21. Steven W. Shuldman, "An Officer Walks into a Bar: Acknowledging the Need for Deterrence in Officer and Director Bars", Fordhan Law Review, 83, pp.333~374 (2014)
  22. Xin Zheng, "A Tale of Two Enforcement Venues: Determinants and Consequences of the SEC’s Choice of Enforcement Venue After the Dodd-Frank Act", SSRN Electronic Journal (2020), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  23. John J. Carney, "Navigating a Litigated SEC Administrative Proceeding", Bloomberg Law (2021)
  24. Jonathan N. Eisenberg, "Calculating Civil Penalties", Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance (2016)
  25. Noam Noked, "SEC “Obey-the-Law” Injunctions Held Invalid", Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance (2012)
  26. Philip R. Lochner, Jr., "The SEC’s New Powers Under the Securities Enforcement Remedies and Penny Stock Reform Act of 1990", ~ (1990)
  27. "Speech by SEC Staff: Insider Trading - A U.S Perspective", SEC Speech, ~ (1998)
  28. "SEC Charges Three in North Carolina With Insider Trading", SEC Speech Press Release, ~ (2012)
  29. "All-Encompassing Enforcement: The Robust Use of Civil and Criminal Actions to Police the Markets", SEC Speech Speeches and Statements, ~ (2014)
  30. "Elon Musk Settles SEC Fraud Charges; Tesla Charged With and Resolves Securities Law Charge", SEC Speech Press Release, ~ (2018)
  31. "Remedies and Relief in SEC Enforcement Actions", SEC Speech Speech, ~ (2018)
  32. "Securities and Exchange Commission and Justice Department’s Antitrust Division Sign Historic Memorandum of Understanding", SEC Speech Press Release, ~ (2020)
  33. "SEC Charges Three Individuals with Insider Trading", SEC Speech Press Release, ~ (2021)
  34. "SEC Charges Biopharmaceutical Company Employee with Insider Trading", SEC Speech Press Release, ~ (2021)
  35. "SEC Obtains Asset Freeze and Other Relief in Halting Penny Stock Scheme on Twitter", SEC Speech Press Release, ~ (2021)
  36. "SEC Charges Three Canadian Citizens in Fraudulent Penny Stock Scheme", SEC Speech Press Release, ~ (2021)
  37. Reuters News, "Insider traders in U.S. face longer prison terms, Reuters analysis shows", ~ (2014)
  38. Financial Times News, "Ex-SAC manager gets nine year sentence for insider trading", ~ (2014)
  39. The Wall Street Journal News, "SEC Wins With In-House Judges", ~ (2015)
  40. Forbes News, "Addressing the SEC’s Administrative “Home Court” Advantage in Enforcement Proceedings", ~ (2015)
  41. Fox Rothschild Article, "SEC’s ‘Obey-the-Law’ Injunction: Is it Ever Possible To Vacate?", ~ (2017)
  42. JDSUPRA Article, "SEC Injunctions: A New Standard?", ~ (2019)
  43. "The Supreme Court Takes on SEC Disgorgement", NYU Word Press - Compliance and Enforcement, ~ (2020)
  44. "Supreme Court approves SEC disgorgement with limits", DLA Piper Publication, ~ (2020)
  45. Business Law Today News, "Oh, What a Relief Liu Is: Liu v. SEC and Relief Defendant Disgorgement", ~ (2020)
  46. Latham&Watkins Client Alert, "US Congress Affirms and Expands SEC’s Disgorgement Authority in Annual Defense Spending Bill", ~ (2021)
  47. JDSUPRA Legal News, "Congress Amends Exchange Act, Expanding SEC Enforcement Power", ~ (2021)
  48. Justice News, "Deutsche Bank Agrees to Pay over $130 Million to Resolve Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Fraud Case", ~ (2021)
  49. "Six months after Liu: The SEC and disgorgement", DLA Piper Publication, ~ (2021)
  50. 김자봉, "미국 SEC의 증권규제 권한 범위에 관한 연구－Lucia v. SEC 판례에서 행정법판사(Administrative Law Judge)의 헌법상 지위에 대한 논쟁을 중심으로－", 증권법연구, 20(1), pp.105~150 (2019), 한국증권법학회[DOI]
  51. "불공정거래 제재 강화를 위한 과징금 도입(‘20.9.15. 윤관석 의원 대표발의)이 추진됩니다", 금융위원회 보도자료, ~ (2020)
  52. 매일경제, "증권감독원, 민사제재금제도 도입 추진", ~ (1995)
  53. 한경 증권, "불공정거래자에 민사제재금 부과 검토 … 증권감독원", ~ (1996)
  54. 조선일보, "법무부, 증선위 자리요구 … 주가조작 과징금제 무산", ~ (2012)

관련 논문AI추천

증권 불공정거래 피해 투자자의 사적 구제 수단에 대한 제 고찰 - 불공정거래 손해배상 청구소송의 활성화 방안을 중심으로최자유은행법학회 · 은행법연구2022 · 제15권 제1호자본시장법 민사제재 체계의 비교법적 분석과 개선과제 ―미 증권법 민사제재 체계와의 비교를 중심으로―김자봉한국증권법학회 · 증권법연구2020 · 제21권 제2호자본시장법상 불공정거래 규제에 관한 비교법적 검토 및 제언 - 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 개정안을 중심으로 -구진모, 윤자영, 이민재, 한희준고려대학교 법학연구원 · 고려법학2023 · 제111호자본시장법상 불공정거래행위의 규제와 제재수단에 관한 연구신경희법학연구소 · 일감법학2013 · 제24호증권 불공정거래 공익신고 제도 확대 방안에 대한 소고최자유사법발전재단 · 사법2022 · 제1권 제59호자본시장법상 불공정거래행위 수사 현황 및 개선방안- 불공정거래행위에 대한 과징금 도입논의와 관련하여 -구승모사단법인 법조협회 · 법조2012 · 제61권 제7호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)

2021년 채권법 중요판례평석주지홍pp. 6-392021년 노동법 중요판례평석유성재pp. 40-582021년 헌법 중요판례평석윤영미pp. 59-782021년 조세법 중요판례평석이전오pp. 79-1132021년 지적재산법 중요판례평석박성호pp. 114-146
원문 보기