在证券市场非面对面交易的虚假陈述民事纠纷中，交易因果关系能否适用推定规则对诉讼成败可谓至关重要。但由于法律规则供给不足，机构投资者适用推定规则的路径一直以来在理论和司法实践中存在诸多争议。究其原因，是因为原告投资者保护和被告上市公司合法权益保护一直是证券市场利益博弈的焦点。不过，情况正在变化，2019 年修订的《证券法》在利益衡量上更倾向投资者保护，严格监管上市公司成为政策导向，让重新思考这一问题成为可能。本文将着眼于非面对面证券交易中机构投资者交易因果关系推定规则的适用问题，首先指出机构投资者的规则适用一度存在立法规则供给不足、理论研究争议不断、司法实践存在分歧的三重困境。不过，2020 年商法十大典型案例之一的江苏保千里虚假陈述纠纷案采纳了允许机构投资者直接适用推定规则、无需证明其已尽合理注意义务作为前提的裁判路径。自此，采取直接适用的路径似乎已成共识。但是，该直接适用路径的合理性存疑。其次，鉴于该路径是借鉴美国最新判例法规则的成果，本文以美国比较法研究为切入点，对比探讨中国大陆适用该路径的理论困境和实践困境。本文将指出，直接适用推定规则的裁判路径是美国法下的政策考量结果，能有效解决机构投资者担任首席原告与集团诉讼制度相冲突的问题。但在中国大陆语境下，这一路径将会过分地偏离侵权法和证据法法理，背离民商合一的发展趋势。实践层面，在中国大陆由中证中小投服中心主导的特别代表人诉讼制度下，也不存在跨越集团诉讼理论与实践障碍的实践需求。进一步的，不直接适用规则更符合中国大陆法传统，也更有利于资本市场发展完善。最后，本文将对机构投资者适用推定规则的路径提出建议。不直接适用不意味着机构投资者只能自证交易因果关系，令其在尽到合理注意义务的前提下适用推定规则也存在法解释空间。根据证据法理论和利益衡量论，选择解释路径应以制度利益为基准。证券虚假陈述诉讼的最终意旨是促进证券市场整体效率的提升。鉴于机构投资者是促进证券市场整体效率提升的最重要群体，法律应提供相应制度，以避免其耗费大量成本获取或核实信息。因此，允许机构投资者在尽到合理注意义务的基础上适用推定规则的解释路径有其必要性。在注意义务的证明责任分配上，机构投资者的投资前合理注意本质上是商业判断，其应自证尽到合理注意义务。在证明内容上，法院应当秉持谦抑性，仅对投资前合规流程进行程序性审查。

In non-face-to-face securities misrepresentation disputes, Factual Causation upon misstatements could be crucial to the success of disputes. However, due to insufficient legislations, the rule application of Factual Causation for institutional investors has been controversial in theory and judicial practice. The reason for this is that the protection of the plaintiff investors and the defendant listed companies have always been the focus of game of interests in the securities market. However, with the 2019 amendments to the Securities Act weighing the interests more in favor of investor protection, stricter regulation of listed companies has become the policy direction, making it possible to rethink the issue.This thesis would focus on the rule application of Factual Causation for institutional investors in non-face-to-face transactions. First, this thesis would analyze the current dilemma of applying rule of Factual Causation to institutional investors, including insufficient supply of legislations, theoretical controversies, and disputes in judicial practices. However, one of the top ten typical cases of Commercial Law in 2020, the Misrepresentation Dispute of Jiangsu Baoqianli Co., played a key role in the focus of this thesis by allowing institutional investors to directly apply the rule of Factual Causation without the proof of exercising reasonable care. Since then, the direct application of rule seems to have become a consensus.Second, this thesis would analyze and discuss the reasonableness of "direct application" path. Considering this path as the result of the latest U.S. case law, this thesis would take the U.S. comparative law study as the entry point and explore the theoretical and practical dilemmas of applying this path in mainland China. This thesis would point out that the direct application of Factual Causation is the result of policy considerations under U.S. law, since the path can effectively solve the problem of conflicts between institutional investors acting as lead plaintiffs and the legislations of class action. However, in the context of mainland China, this path would excessively deviate from the tort jurisprudence of reasonable reliance and the evidence jurisprudence of presumption, and therefore results in the theoretical dilemma that contradicts the value and trend of civil and commercial law. In practice, under the special representative litigation system led by China Securities Investor Service Center, there is no practical need to cross the theoretical and practical barriers of class actions. Further, applying the rule indirectly is more in line with the tradition of law in mainland China, as well as more conducive to the development of capital market. Therefore, the “direct application” path under the Misrepresentation Dispute of Jiangsu Baoqianli does not fit with mainland China.Finally, this thesis would forward suggestions to the rule application of Factual Causation for institutional investors in non-face-to-face transactions. The fact that institutional investors should not apply the rule directly does not mean that institutional investors shall hold the burden of proof of factual causation, since it is possible under jurisprudence of mainland China that institutional investors applying the rule under the premise of exercising reasonable care. According to the jurisprudence of evidence and the theory of balancing the interests, legal interpretation should be based on the interests of institution. This thesis would point out that the institutional intent of securities misrepresentation litigation should promote the overall efficiency of the securities market. Given that institutional investors are the most important group to promote the overall efficiency of the securities market, the law should provide the institution to avoid the costly efforts of institutional investors to obtain or verify information. It is therefore necessary to allow institutional investors to apply the rule under the premise of exercising reasonable care. In terms of the burden of proof for reasonable care, this thesis would point out that the plaintiff institutional investors should bear the burden of proof since investment is essentially a process of making business judgment. As for the content of burden of proof, the court shall uphold a procedural review for institutional investor’s pre-investment compliance process.