122 ‘… the legislative history compels the conclusion that Prudential's Investment Fund is a ”fund” as that term is used in the statute. As we have previously seen, the Investment Fund is a completely segregated account, devoted to investing in securities. The cash for these investments is derived from payments made by the purchaser of the variable annuity contract. Though the proceeds of the fund are held for the sole benefit of the annuitant, it is this fund, and no other entity, in which he has an interest.
Thus, the fund is separable from the insurance company which, as the Supreme Court noted in VALIC,
“guarantee(s) nothing to the annuitant except an interest in a portfolio of common stocks or other equities- an interest that has a ceiling but no floor.”… It follows from this that the Investment Fund, and not Prudential, is the ”issuer” of these securities for the purposes of the Investment Company Act of 1940… The Investment Company Act of 1940 contains significant safeguards for the protection of those who, like the purchasers of variable annuities, invest in ”securities.” These safeguards,
characterized by the Commission as insuring ”corporate democracy,” include disclosure of investment policy and operating practices, and the regulation of fees, trading practices, and changes in investment policy. The mere fact that the investment program in the case at bar is under the aegis of an insurance company ought not to negate compliance with these controls in the absence of compelling
circumstances.” 326 F.2d. 385-388 (3rd Cir. 1964) (citations omitted).
123 The NAIC's History and Background, http://www.naic.org/index_about.htm (last visited June 11th 2008).
予討論。
（一） 變額保險模範法
本法第2 條之P項僅將分離帳戶定義為：本州保險人或外州或外國保險人外 州依本州或外州相當之保險法規建立之分離帳戶124，此定義顯未就分離帳戶之特 徵及結構加以任何描述。反而分離帳戶之運作於同條S項關於「變額人壽保險單」
（variable life insurance policy）之定義中，可見端倪。依該項，「變額人壽保險 單」乃指一保險單提供人壽保險之保障，而其保障金額隨按本州或外州保險法設 立之保險人設立及管理之分離帳戶之投資表現而變動者125。此定義已揭櫫變額保 單之現金價值係於分離帳戶之投資結果此一事實。
本法關於分離帳戶則主要規定於第 6 條及第 7 條。第 6 條明文揭示發行變 額保險單之保險人建立一至多個分離帳戶之義務，並規定分離帳戶資產之評價方 式，乃依評價日之市價或依市價估計之轉讓成本（amortized cost）評定之126。而 每一變額保險單應先申請州保險監理官核准，其申請核准時應對其整體運作方式 (methods of operation)、銷售保單之方法(methods of distribution)、分離帳戶資產 之投資策略（investment policy）及死亡與費用風險（mortality and expense risks）
由保險人承擔之事實均應予揭露，而於投資策略有變更之場合，亦應向州保險監 理官申報(filing)變更之程序及內容127。另，於簽發變額保單時，保險人對分離帳 戶之稅賦（taxes）、仲介費（brokerage fee）、行政及投資管理費用（administrative expense and investment management expenses）、死亡保險費、分離帳戶中應維持 之最低金額及其他保險契約利益之對價（charges for incidental insurance benefit）
等事項負書面揭露之義務128。
特值注意者，本法第 6 條H項要求保險人訂立約束自己及其關係企業、董 事 、 經 理 人 及 受 雇 人 為 分 離 帳 戶 從 事 買 賣 行 為 時 之 行 為 準 則(standard of Conduct)，而若保險人自訂之自律規則（code of ethics）符合 1940 年投資公司法 第17 項(j)款及其相關法規之規定者，即可認其已服膺本條之規定129。此一規定，
124 “’Separate account’ means a separate account established pursuant to Section [insert section] of this state or pursuant to the corresponding section of the insurance laws of the state domicile of a foreign or alien insurer”. Variable Life Insurance Model Regulation (hereinafter VLI Reg.), Sec. 2(P)(1996).
125 “’Variable life insurance policy’ means an individual policy that provides for life insurance the amount or duration of which varies according to the investment experience of any separate account or accounts established and maintained by the insurer as to the policy, pursuant to Section [insert applicable section] of the insurance laws of this state or pursuant to the corresponding section of the insurance laws of the state of domicile of a foreign or alien insurer”. VLI Reg. Sec. 2 (S) (1996).
126 For details, see VLI Reg. Sec. 6 (A)&(D) (1996).
127 For details, see VLI Reg. Sec. 3 (B) & 6 (F)(1996).
128 VLI Reg. Sec. 6 (G) (1996).
129 “Every insurer seeking approval to enter into the variable life insurance business …should adopt by formal action by its board of directors a written statement specifying the standards of conduct of the insurer, its officers, directors, employees and affiliates with respect to the purchase or sales of
恰指陳變額壽險之分離帳戶，性質上與共同基金或其他型態之投資基金相彷之事 實，否則，關於分離帳戶內投資標的之買賣規則，又何需依投資公司法之相關規 定定之？此外，本法將分離帳戶視為證券商品並為同一之處理者，尚有二處。一 為第6 條J項規定，保險人不得與依 1940 年投資顧問法（Investment Advice Act of 1940）合法登記以外之個人或法人，就分離帳戶之管理，訂立有償之顧問契約130；
investments of separate accounts. The standard of conduct should be binding on the insurer and those to who, it refers . A code or codes of ethics meeting the requirements of Section 17j under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and its applicable rules and regulations shall satisfy the provisions of this section”. VLI Reg. Sec. 6 (H) (1996). Section 17 j of the Investment Company Act of 1940 provides that “Rules and regulations prohibiting fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative courses of conduct. It shall be unlawful for any affiliated person of or principal underwriter for a registered investment company or any affiliated person of an investment adviser of or principal underwriter for a registered investment company, to engage in any act, practice, or course of business in connection with the purchase or sale, directly or indirectly, by such person of any security held or to be acquired by such registered investment company in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may adopt to define, and prescribe means reasonably necessary to prevent, such acts, practices, or courses of business as are fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative. Such rules and regulations may include requirements for the adoption of codes of ethics by registered investment companies and investment advisers of, and principal underwriters for, such investment companies establishing such standards as are reasonably necessary to prevent such acts, practices, or courses of business.” See 15 U.S.C. § 80a-17 (j) (1999). Also see 17 C.F.R. §270.17j-1(2004).
130 “An insurer shall not enter into a contract under which any person undertakes, for a fee, to regularly furnish investment advice to such insurer with respect to its separate accounts maintained for variable life insurance policies unless the person providing advice is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advice Act of 1940 ”. See VLI Reg. Sec. 6 (J)(1) (1996). Section 203 of the Investment Advice Act of 1940 provides that “it shall be unlawful for any investment adviser, unless registered under this section, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce in connection with his or its business as an investment adviser.” See 15 U.S.C. § 80b-3 (a) (2006).
131 “…The requirement of this section shall be deemed to have been satisfied to the extent that a disclosure containing information required by this section is delivered, …in the form of a prospectus included un the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 and which was declared effective by the Securities Exchange Commission…”. See VLI Reg. Sec. 7 (1996). According to Section 2 (a)(10) of the Securities Act, “The term "prospectus means any prospectus, notice, circular, advertisement, letter, or communication, written or by radio or television, which offers any security for sale or confirms the sale of any security; except that (a) a communication sent or given after the effective date of the registration statement (other than a prospectus permitted under subsection (b) of section 10) shall not be deemed a prospectus if it is proved that prior to or at the same time with such communication a written prospectus meeting the requirements of subsection (a) of section 10 at the time of such communication was sent or given to the person to whom the communication was made, and (b) a notice, circular, advertisement, letter, or communication in respect of a security shall not be deemed to be a prospectus if it states from whom a written prospectus meeting the requirements of section 10 may be obtained and, in addition, does no more than identify the security, state the price thereof, state by whom orders will be executed, and contain such other information as the Commission, by rules or regulations deemed necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed therein, may permit.” See 15 U.S.C. § 77a-2 (a)(10) (2000). Also see 15 U.S.C. § 77a-10 (1954).
（二） 變額年金模範法
本法第4 條A項對分離帳戶之運作有詳細規定。依該項，除為所擔保之保險 契約利益預留之準備金（reserves for guaranteed benefits）外，其他挹注於分離帳 戶或作為現金價值累積之金額，均得隨時投資或再投資（reinvest）於同一或其 他分離帳戶而無保險監理法規中關於保險公司資金運用相關要求或限制之適用
132。至於分離帳戶資產之評價方式，則與前開「變額保險模範法」第6 條D項之 規定，並無二致，亦即，依評價日之市價，或於無立即可出售之市場時，則由契 約以書面約定之133。
至於分離帳戶證券商品之屬性，本法第 4 條D項則有明文。依該項規定，
倘變額年金保險之分離帳戶向聯邦證券交易委員會註冊為「單位投資信託」（unit investment trust）者，保險人得依分離帳戶受易人（保單持有人）之指示，就分 離帳戶所持有之股票，依 1940 年投資公司法相關部分，行使表決權(voting rights)134。另，倘分離帳戶向聯邦證券交易委員會註冊為「管理投資公司」
（management investment company）者，其得組成委員會（committee）、董事會
（board）或其他管理機構，其成員得為保險人之關係企業但須由分離帳戶之受 益人選舉產生，以單獨或聯合行使對分離帳戶資產之管理並進行投資135。 此一 規定亦揭露分離帳戶應向聯邦證券主管機關一投資公司法註冊之事實，顯見將分 離帳戶定位為類似共同基金之投資基金，具正當性。
四、 小結
綜上，美國之證券監理與保險監理及各該法規之制訂與執行之權，雖分屬 聯邦證券交易委員會及州保險監理官，然二者對投資型保險分離帳戶屬證券商品 性質之認定，並無歧異。此由NAIC 模範法之相關條文及證券法、投資公司法之 規範與相關判例法之見解即足窺知。此一結論，亦使前開理論層次所得「分離帳
132 “Except as may be provided with respect to reserves for guaranteed benefits…[a]mounts allocated to separate account and its accumulations may be invested and reinvested without regard to any requirements or limitations prescribed by the laws of this state governing the investments of life insurance companies”. Model Variable Annuity Regulation (hereinafter VA Reg.), Sec.4(A)(1)(a) (1999).
133 For details, see VA Reg., Sec. 4(B) (1999).
134 “…[a] company may, with respect to a separate account registered with the Securities Exchange Commission as a unit investment trust, exercise voting rights in connection with securities of a regulated investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and held in such separate accounts in accordance with instructions from persons having interests in such accounts ratably determined by the company…”. See Sec.4(D)(1)(a) (1999).
135 “[a] company may, with respect to a separate account registered with the Securities Exchange Commission as a management investment company, establish for the account a committee, board or other body, whose members may or may not be otherwise affiliated with the company and may be elected to membership by the vote of persons having interests in the account…The Committee, board or other body may have the power, exercisable alone or in conjunction with others, to manage the separate account and the investment of its assets”. See Sec.4(D)(1)(b) (1999).
戶係證券商品」之推論，獲致驗證，亦證實將分離帳戶視為證券商品而由證券監 理法規與監理機關予規範、監督與管理，切實可行。美國證券法之第151 號規則 及投資公司法之第6e-2 及 6e-3(T)號規則及相關案例法揭露之「投資風險承擔」
及「與保險人財務隔離」等要件，進一步為判斷何種分離帳戶應有證券相關法規 之適用，訂立明確基準，使對分離帳戶實施功能性監管之系統得運作無礙，殊值 參考。
肆、 台灣法制之規範內容與檢討
本文下乃就台灣投資型保險商品於保險法及其他相關行政法規關於投資型 保險，尤其分離帳戶部分之規定予研討，試發現分離帳戶於台灣現行法制上之定 位，並探究現行法規範之妥適性。