內部人實際知悉（持有）內線消息乃內線交易責任成立之必要條件，但問題在於，若行為人交易前雖獲悉重大未公開之內線消息，實際上卻未加以「利用」於其所從事之買入或賣出行為，據此，該交易行為是否仍該當不法內線交易之規定？換言之，被告之交易行為與其所獲悉內線消息之間，是否應有因果關係為必要？從而，關於被告之主觀意圖，原告除證明被告確有獲悉持有內線消息外，是否尚須更進一步證明被告有實際「利用」其所持有內線消息而為交易之事證，抑或僅須證明被告知悉消息，並有買賣系爭證券之行為外觀，即為已足。本文以為，行為人交易時「持有」重大未公開消息，並不足以構成內線交易罪。行為人尚須「持有」並「利用」重大非公開消息為證券交易，才會構成內線交易規範的違反。我國最高法院91 年台上字第3037 號及94 年台上字第1433 號二則判決，非但錯誤引用美國已廢棄不用之「平等取得資訊理論」，更誤認內部人僅須具備「獲悉發行股票公司有重大影響其股票價格之消息」及「在該消息未公開前，對該公司之上市或在證券商營業處所買賣之股票，買入或賣出」此二形式要件，即可成立內線交易之罪，無庸再論行為人主觀意圖，顯有未當，實務界實不宜再予援用。內線交易的構成仍應以行為人主觀上具有不法意圖為要件，不可不論其特殊主觀構成要件要素，即利用內線消息的目的。因此，我國內線交易禁止規定之解釋上，絕不可脫離其核心概念—「證券詐欺」。

The issue addressed in this article is whether unlawful insider trading liability should attach when someone trades merely while “in the possession of” material, nonpublic information,or whether a more stringent standard of having actually used or traded “on the basis of”
such information must be met. In other words, this article analyzes where, the Securities Exchange Act prohibition on insider trading is violated when an insider trades while in possession of material insider information without affirmatively using the information in first
deciding to trade.Based on the research of U.S. leading cases, the violation of securities fraud arises only when there is “intentional or willful conduct designed to deceive,” and that it is the use rather than the possession of inside information that gives rise to the requisite intent to defraud. In addition, the proof of “scienter” requires both possession and actual use of inside information when consummating a trade. Hence, it is not enough that an insider’s conduct results in harm to investors, rather the plaintiff must prove that the defendant used the inside information in making the relevant trading decisions. Otherwise, a knowing-possession standard would go a long way toward making insider trading a strict liability crime.