Key points

• Aimed at fighting against securities fraud, a new amendment rule for the enforcement of market abuse regulation has recently been filed by the Korean lawmakers. The gist of the bill is to enable regulators to impose civil or administrative penalties on a party involved in fraudulent behaviours (eg insider dealing, market manipulation, unfair trading) as a more effective means of sanction, which is not available under the current regulatory system. Good progress is anticipated, when the bill get through legislature. However, the features of this proposal are unclear and limited in some critical aspects.
• This article explores the current market abuse regime (MAR) in Korea and examines the issues a new draft bill raises: an administrative sanction is still subordinated to criminal sanctions. Despite its many advantages, the regulator cannot independently exercise sanctions authority in market abuse cases. Unjust enrichment is used as a penalty base.
• It is thus argued that the existing punitive paradigm based on criminal sanctions should be shifted towards administrative sanctions, whilst ensuring due process in administrative proceedings to a substantive level. Further, we call for law and policy-makers to divorce the legally binding ties of penalties from ill-gotten profits.

中文翻译：

---

在韩国执行市场滥用制度：近期发展和未来挑战

关键点

• 为了打击证券欺诈，韩国立法者最近提交了一项新的执行市场滥用监管的修订规则。该法案的主旨是让监管机构能够对涉及欺诈行为（例如内幕交易、市场操纵、不公平交易）的一方施加民事或行政处罚，作为更有效的制裁手段，而在现行监管制度下，这是不具备的。 . 当该法案通过立法机构时，预计会有良好的进展。但是，该提案的特点并不明确，并且在一些关键方面受到限制。
• 本文探讨了韩国当前的市场滥用制度 (MAR)，并探讨了新法案草案提出的问题：行政制裁仍服从于刑事制裁。尽管有许多优势，但监管机构不能在市场滥用案件中独立行使制裁权。不当得利被用作惩罚基础。
• 因此，有人认为，现有的基于刑事制裁的惩罚范式应该转向行政制裁，同时确保行政诉讼的正当程序达到实质性水平。此外，我们呼吁法律和政策制定者将惩罚与不义之财的具有法律约束力的联系分开。