期貨交易法，事實上即為衍生性商品交易法，隨著衍生性商品發展推陳出新，在其高隱蔽與高槓桿的特性下，對於市場之波動甚至更甚於傳統基礎證券商品，而有管制之必要。我國於民國86年間訂定期貨交易法第107條內線交易禁止之規定，嗣又於105年11月9日為首次之修正，惟修正後仍有諸多疑慮，例如就連結至有價證券之期貨交易乙節，是否即已完全排除法規套利之誘因？而不區分連結之商品類型，一概適用期貨交易法是否妥適？又期貨交易法第107條部分體例如獲悉、消息成立等節，係採與證券交易法第157條之1相異之用語，適用上應如何解釋？就此，本論文交互對照證券交易法第157條之1之規定及比較法上美國之立法例，建議期貨交易法第107條在近期修正之目標上，應可就連結至有價證券之期貨交易增訂準用證券交易法內線交易禁止之規定，或將之參諸證券交易法第157條之1規定自期貨交易法第107條抽出獨立規範；另就諸如消息成立時點、定義、主觀要件等體例設計上與證券交易法統一，俾同時解決法規套利、法規漏洞以及規範解釋適用等疑義。 / With the frequent business and finance development, the concealment and leverage of derivative commodities are obviously higher than before. This shows the necessity and importance of the legal governance. Article 107 of the Futures Trading Act regarding the forbidden of insider trading was promulgated in 1997, and revised firstly in 2016. However, is the aforesaid amendment enough to eliminate the incentive of insider trading for the commodities derived from securities? Is the amendment which directly governs all kinds of futures trading without distinguishing by the nature thereof proper?And how to interpret the terms of “knowing”, “the establishment of information” of the Futures Trading Act since they are inconsistent with the Article 157-1 of the Securities and Exchange Act? For those aforementioned doubts, referring to the Securities and Exchange Act and the United States law system, this study suggests that the Futures Trading Act may adopt the following revisions: 1. The futures trading derived from securities and commodities shall be governed respectively. 2. Those terms such as “knowing”, “the establishment of information” which are irrelevant with the nature of futures trading shall be consistent with the Securities and Exchange Act.