注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制研究
|
摘要
近年来,一系列上市公司财务舞弊丑闻陆续被曝光,而幕后总有一个“合谋者”的影子——为上市公司提供审计服务的注册会计师。注册会计师诚信缺失,已成为证券市场的一大顽症。民事责任残缺,违规成本过低,是导致当前注册会计师屡屡违规的一个直接而关键的因素。在利润面前,单纯寄希望于注册会计师的良心和职业道德是徒劳的,完善的法律与监管机制才能从根本上杜绝其铤而走险。要想去除注册会计师造假的“毒瘤”,必须加大注册会计师的法律风险,强化注册会计师的民事赔偿责任,依靠惩戒机制来提高注册会计师的风险意识和执业质量。2003年1月9日,我国最高人民法院发布了司法解释《关于审理证券市场因虚假陈述引发的民事赔偿案件的若干规定》,2007年6月11日,又发布了《关于审理涉及会计师事务所在审计业务活动中民事侵权赔偿案件的若干规定》,解决了审计责任实体规定问题,对如何正确地界定会计师事务所的民事责任,保障市场经济健康发展,保护社会公共利益和广大投资者的合法权益,以及促进注册会计师行业的健康发展具有重要意义。尽管目前真正因虚假陈述被判承担民事责任的会计师事务所还极少,但可以预见的是,随着相关法律法规的不断完善,随着证券民事赔偿机制的逐步建立,注册会计师职业面临民事诉讼的风险会越来越大。鉴于审计业务的高度专业性与证据的复杂性,如果相关诉讼中只按普通的民事诉讼证据规则予以举证、质证与认定,由此得出的裁判结论,有可能会出现专业性上的不足与缺陷,导致审判实践适用规则不一,会计师事务所民事责任畸轻畸重的现象。对此,最好的办法是通过专业性的鉴定程序加以弥补。因此,建立一套体现注册会计师行业特色的执业责任鉴定机制,以鉴定意见来作为对注册会计师责任认定的权威结论,并提供给法官作为判断注册会计师是否承担民事赔偿责任的重要依据,为注册会计师虚假陈述证券民事诉讼提供专家支持,从而实现司法公正,保障投资者和注册会计师的合法权益,已经成为加强社会主义市场经济法制建设的客观需要。
论文在借鉴审计学、经济学和法学三个学科领域的相关研究成果及司法实践经验的基础上,以规范研究方法为主,结合实证研究中的案例分析法,对我国注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建问题进行了较为全面、系统、深入的研究。其基本思路是：首先对注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的基本理论问题进行分析,进而从审计学、经济学、法学三个学科的不同视角为注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制研究寻找理论基础,然后在此基础上初步建立起注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的基本框架,具体包括注册会计师执业责任鉴定主体制度、鉴定技术标准、鉴定程序制度、鉴定意见的采信机制和鉴定人的权责制度等。
(1)注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的基本理论。注册会计师执业责任鉴定是一种法律服务行为,是鉴定人运用专门知识作用于社会、服务于社会的活动,在当事人主义诉讼模式下为当事人提供服务,在职权主义诉讼模式下为法官提供服务。注册会计师执业责任鉴定具有专业性、中立性以及主观性与客观性相结合的基本特征,可以为法官提供借以查明案件事实、做出正确裁决的依据,也是鉴别、认定其他证据是否具有真实性、可靠性的重要途径。从审计学的角度来看,注册会计师审计法律责任的界定实质上是审计期望差距动态平衡的过程,是在公众期望和职业界期望之间寻求一种协调关系。在诉讼中引入注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制,关注注册会计师审计的特性和社会责任,由独立的、权威的第三方出具专业的鉴定意见提供给法官作为裁量的依据,有利于协调社会公众、法律界与会计职业界之间的认识分歧,平衡公众利益和注册会计师职业权益,避免注册会计师承担过重的、不切合实际的责任,为注册会计师行业提供健康发展的空间。从经济学的角度来看,引入注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制不仅仅是在诉讼活动中增加了一项鉴定程序,社会将为整个注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建和运行付出不小的成本。注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制能带来的直接收益是提高审判的效率和正确性,提高审判效率可以降低诉讼成本。总体上构建注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的收益大于成本,符合经济原则。从证据法学的角度来看,注册会计师执业责任鉴定作为专业技术鉴定的一个特殊功能就是,通过这种专业认定,能够使会计师事务所提供的会计审计证据在法庭认定案件事实时最终产生证据效力。
(2)注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制框架的设计。“公正与效率”是一切现代制度设计中应遵循的共同价值目标,注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制设计的最终目标是有利于维护当事人的合法权益,有利于法律正确实施,促进司法公正,提高司法效率。注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制设计对公正的价值目标的追求体现在保障鉴定主体的中立性,鉴定程序的公正性,鉴定标准的科学性和统一性。注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制设计对效率价值的追求体现在,通过合理的制度设计使得地位中立的鉴定人通过合理的鉴定程序,依据科学、统一的鉴定技术标准,在合理的鉴定时限内,出具客观、中立、权威的鉴定意见,避免非正常的重复鉴定、多头鉴定和鉴定分歧。注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制是指规范注册会计师执业责任鉴定活动的制度、规章、规则及其相互作用方式的总称。大体上说,主要可分为鉴定主体制度、鉴定技术标准、鉴定程序制度三个模块,在这三个模块之下又包括各项具体制度。
(3)注册会计师执业责任鉴定主体制度设计。科学合理的鉴定主体制度是整个鉴定机制的核心,决定着整个鉴定机制的有效运行和在民事诉讼中积极作用的发挥。我国对鉴定人采取的是鉴定权主义原则,只有经过国家主管部门资格认证的人员才能从事鉴定工作,而且鉴定人一般需依附于鉴定机构才能开展鉴定工作。作为独立于公、检、法、司及其他行政机关设立的中介机构,注册会计师执业责任鉴定委员会的成立消除了传统鉴定模式中“自侦自鉴”、“自诉自鉴”、“自审自鉴”的嫌疑,是注册会计师执业责任鉴定的适格主体。目前这一鉴定主体仍有需要改进的地方,具体设想包括改革鉴定委员会的管理方式、实行二元鉴定主体制、建立鉴定人名册制度等。建议中国注册会计师执业责任鉴定委员会应由财政部(经财政部授权,具体由中国注册会计师协会代为行使管理权)和司法部共同领导管理,并参照由司法部统一制定的司法鉴定机构审核标准对执业责任鉴定委员会进行年度审核。同时,组建省级鉴定委员会,分别由省注协和司法部门共同领导和管理。注册会计师执业责任鉴定主体由鉴定委员会和鉴定人共同构成,实行二元鉴定主体制,彻底解决一元制下因法官和当事人无法对鉴定主体出具的鉴定结论进行质询进而影响鉴定结论的公正性和权威性的缺陷。司法部门可以在注协的协助下,经过审查、公示、批准程序,按照公开、择优录用的原则,将符合注册会计师执业责任鉴定资格和能力条件的鉴定人列入本级鉴定委员会的名册。在名册中应当明确载明鉴定人的简历、学历、学术水平、鉴定经验、有关论著情况等等。名册可以刊登在专业网站上,并置备于法院、律师事务所、会计师事务所和其他相关场所,以备法院或当事人选任。
(4)注册会计师执业责任鉴定技术标准研究。建立统一的注册会计师执业责任鉴定技术标准是鉴定结论的证据性质所决定的,既是保证鉴定质量,维护司法公正的需要,也是维护鉴定人职业信誉的需要。广义的注册会计师执业责任鉴定技术标准可大致分为引用技术标准和专用技术标准两大类。引用技术标准是指已有的、直接被引用作为依据的鉴定技术标准,包括现有的与注册会计师审计报告虚假陈述有关的法律、法规、规章、准则、制度标准。专用技术标准是指根据国家相关法律、法规、规章、准则、制度,针对注册会计师执业责任鉴定中所涉及的具体问题,结合科学技术或者专门知识所制定的技术标准和技术规范。专用技术标准又可以分为判定标准和报告标准,其中判定标准是鉴定人从事鉴定业务过程中搜集鉴定证据、形成鉴定意见所遵循的标准；报告标准是鉴定人在出具鉴定意见书所遵循的标准。对审计报告真实性衡量的现实标准是法律真实,注册会计执业准则是衡量法律真实的直接依据。对于注册会计师,对法律要求的“应有的职业谨慎”的违反程度是判断注册会计师主观过失的客观标准,落实到可执行的层面,这一判断标准应是“注册会计师执业准则”。在司法实践中,对故意的推定和过失程度大小的判断应建立在综合考察审计失败的性质及其重大性、注册会计师的执业行为是否按照执业准则的要求进行等因素的基础上加以判断。
(5)注册会计执业责任鉴定程序与鉴定意见的采信机制。注册会计师执业责任鉴定涉及到一系列相互联系又相互独立的具体程序和制度,其流程大致可分为鉴定的启动、鉴定的实施、鉴定意见的采信三个组成部分。注册会计师执业责任鉴定程序的启动应主要通过两个途径：一是由法院根据案件审理需要直接启动；二是由当事人提出申请经法院同意后启动。法官掌握了鉴定启动的最终决定权,当事人的鉴定申请权并不影响法官对鉴定的自由裁量权。为了保证当事人的鉴定申请权落到实处,有必要设置必须鉴定的具体规则,也就是说法律必须规定,当某类案件或某种情况发生时必须交付鉴定。注册会计师执业责任鉴定实施程序包括鉴定的委托与受理、鉴定的具体实施、鉴定意见书的出具等步骤。鉴定人出具的鉴定意见是否被法庭采信,以作为案件裁决的直接证据,完全由法官自由裁量。绝大多数法官并非会计审计专家,为了保证法官能够合理地评价、采信证据,也为了能对当事人和律师起到指引作用,我们还需要建立注册会计师执业责任鉴定意见的采信机制,包括鉴定意见的质证制度、采信要件和采信说明制度等。鉴定意见必须经过质证才能作为认定案件事实的依据,通过当庭质证,鉴定人就有关问题作出解释,既有利于当事人理解并接受鉴定意见,从而避免不必要的重复鉴定,也有利于通过质证发现鉴定意见可能存在的错误,从而维护当事人的合法权益。质证的过程同样也可以帮助并非会计审计专家的法官避免陷入对鉴定意见的盲目信任中,帮助法官形成正确的内心确信,从而对于是否采信鉴定意见作出正确的判断。此外,一旦鉴定人出庭作证成为一种普遍做法,也可以更好地促进鉴定人在鉴定工作中认真负责,确保鉴定意见的公正性。鉴定意见的采信要件包括鉴定主体适格、鉴定程序合法、采信程序合法。根据公开原则,法官应当在裁判文书中公开其采信或不采信鉴定意见的理由。
(6)注册会计师执业责任鉴定人的权责制度。为了保障注册会计师执业责任鉴定人能够顺利地从事鉴定活动,保证鉴定意见的客观公正,必须赋予鉴定人必要的权利和相应的义务以及法律责任。权利与义务相辅相成,义务又与责任密不可分,鉴定人的权利、义务和法律责任制度共同构成鉴定人权责制度。在完善注册会计师执业责任鉴定人的权利和义务方面,除了现行法律法规所赋予鉴定人的基本权利和义务之外,权利方面应增加司法保护权以及知悉鉴定意见的采信情况和相关裁判结果的权利等,义务方面还应增加宣誓的义务、接受法官或当事人监督的义务等。当鉴定人违反法定义务时,应依法追究鉴定人的法律责任,包括刑事责任、民事责任和行政责任。对于鉴定人故意作出虚假鉴定,隐匿事实真相,扰乱诉讼秩序,构成犯罪行为的,应追究刑事责任,以维护司法公正。如果鉴定人因故意或重大过失而导致错误的鉴定结论,并且造成了当事人的损失,则鉴定人须承担民事责任,赔偿当事人的损失。相比其他国家的做法,目前我国对鉴定人的违法行为行政处罚手段的相对单薄,缺乏统一规范,还不能完全满足规范司法鉴定活动、建立司法鉴定新秩序的需要。主管部门(财政部和司法部)对注册会计师执业责任鉴定人违法行为的行政处罚除了警告、停止执业、撤销登记等方式之外,还可以参考我国《行政处罚法》第8条列示的行政处罚种类的规定,引入罚款和没收酬金等方式。除此之外,专业团体(中注协)还可以对鉴定人专家责任进行追究,采取行业自律性的处罚和惩戒措施。
In recent years, a series of financial fraud scandals in public companies have been exposed. The auditors always act in collusion with those companies. The dishonesty of auditors has caused a big problem in security market. The lack of civil liability and low non-compliance cost for auditors brings about auditors'frequent violations of the law and discipline. Compared with relying on the conscience and professional ethics of auditors only, a sound legal supervision mechanism could be more effective in preventing auditors from seeking for profit unscrupulously. In order to restrict the auditing collusion, the litigation risk and civil liability of auditors should be strengthened and disciplinary systems also need to be built up to increase auditors' awareness of litigation risk and auditing quality. On January 9,2003, the Supreme People's Court in China promulgated a judicial interpretation of'Several Provisions on Trial of Civil Compensation Cases Arising from False Representation in the Securities Market'. On June 11,2007, another judicial interpretation is issued as'Several Provisions on the Trial of Cases Involving Civil Tort Compensation in Connection with Audit Activities by Accounting Firms'. Those provisions provide practical guideline in the identification of civil liability of accounting firms to ensure the sound development of market economy and safeguard the public interest and the lawful rights and interests of investors, which is also beneficial to the development of China's CPA industry. Although there are quite a few accounting firms convicted of the civil liability for false representation until now, it is predictable that litigation risk for auditors is going to increase along with the continuous improvement of relative regulations and the establishment of civil compensation mechanism in security market. Considering the high professional of audit service and the complexity of evidence in such cases, if the evidences is cross-examined and confirmed just according to general rules, the judgment might be insufficient and defective from professional angle and the punishment on accounting firms might be too heavy or too light due to different applications of general rules. The best way to remedy the defects is to build up a set of identification mechanism of CPAs'liability. Therefore, the establishment of liability identification mechanism reflecting CPA characteristics has become an objective demand to improve legal system in the socialist market economy. Expert opinions will become authoritative and important basis for determining whether auditors should assume the civil compensation liability. It provides expert support for the justice trial of cases arising from auditors'false representation, which is beneficial to protect investors' and auditors'lawful rights and interests.
This paper is based on relevant researches in the field of auditing, economics and law. Normative analysis and case study approach are adopted in the research involving how to construct a set of identification mechanism of CPAs'liability in China. The paper began with an analysis of the basic theories about the identification mechanism of CPAs'liability from different perspectives. Next, it tried to establish a basic framework of the identification mechanism, which integrates subject system of identification, identification standards, identification procedure, admissibility system of expert opinion, and rights and obligations of appraisers. The main contents are as following:
(1) Basic theories about identification mechanism of CPAs' liability. The identification of CPAs'liability is a sort of legal service. The expert witnesses serve the society based on their professional knowledge. They serve litigant parties in the adversary system and serve judges in the inquisitory system. The identification activity is characterized by profession, neutrality and the combination of subjectivity and objectivity. It helps judges to investigate the truth, make right decisions and check the reliability of other evidences. From the perspective of auditing, the definition of audit liability represents a dynamite balance process, which coordinates the public expectation and the profession expectation. Introducing the identification mechanism into the lawsuits and focusing CPAs' characteristics and social responsibility, it is beneficial to settle different views among public, legal profession and audit profession. It makes a balance between public interest and CPAs'interests, which helps the CPA industry to avoid from unrealistic responsibilities and develop soundly. From the view of economics, although the identification mechanism will cost a lot for its construction and operation, it will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of trials which could lower the costs of litigation further. Therefore, in the long-term, the benefits will overwhelm the costs. From the perspective of Law, a special function of the authentication is to produce the effectiveness of evidence when the court finds the facts of the case. And from the view of evidence law, as a professional identification, one of its special functions is to confirm the accounting and auditing evidences provided by accounting firms and make them admissible at last in the court.
(2) Analysis about the basic framework of the identification mechanism of CPAs' liability.'Justice and efficiency'should be a uniform value objective pursued in every institutional design. The final aim of identification mechanism is to protect litigants' legal rights, to be in favor of applying laws properly, and to promote judicial fairness and judicial efficiency. The value objective of justice has reflected in ensuring that the identification subject is neutral, the identification procedure is fair and the identification standards are scientific and unified. The value objective of efficiency is embodied in an appropriate mechanism which makes each neutral expert witness act according to the reasonable identification procedure and scientific and unified standards, then issue objective, neutral and authoritative opinions in time and avoid abnormal repeated or multiple identifications. The identification mechanism of CPAs' liability is considered as a group of relevant institutions, regulations, rules and their interactions. It can be divided into three parts in generally as identification subject system, standards of identification and identification procedures. Each part consists of different systems and institutions.
(3) Design of the subject system of identification. A scientific and reasonable identification subject system is the core of the whole identification mechanism, which influences on whether the mechanism works efficiently and plays a positive role in lawsuits. In China only people who have got qualification can work as an appraiser in accordance with the power of expertise. The appraiser can only take the job by joining in an appraisal institution. In traditional identification mode, investigating, appealing, judging and identifying may integrate in a sole subject. So the justice is suspicious. As a sort of intermediary agency, the identification committee separate from procuratorate organs, courts, judicial and other administrative departments, which is more independent and can be a suitable subject in CPAs' liability identification. At present, there are still some improvements should be made, such as innovation of the committee's management, dual subject institution and register system of appraisers. The committee should be authorized and supervised by the Ministry of Finance and the Justice Department together. It is under the direct supervision of Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants (CICPA) and takes qualification examination each year according to regulations of judicial identification issued by the Justice Department. Meanwhile, local identification committee in each province should be set up, which is supervised by provincial institute of certified public accountants and provincial judicial department. Dual subject system means that the responsibility entity of identification is composed of by the identification committee and appraisers both. Such kind of dual subject system will amend the defects caused by sole subject system. In a sole subject system, judges and litigants always cannot inquiry expert opinions because of appraisers'absence, which could affect the fairness and authority of expert opinions. With the help of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants, judicial department can make a personnel roster of qualified and capable appraisers after the process of investigating, publishing and approving openly. The roster records some relevant personal information for each appraiser such as resume, educational background, academic level, identification experience and published works etc. It can be displayed on the professional websites and provided in courts, law firms or other relevant places for judges'or litigants' selection.
(4) Research on the standards of identification. Considering the nature of identification evidence, it is necessary to establish a set of consolidated identification standards. On one hand, it ensures the quality of identification and defenses the judicial fairness. On the other hand, it also defenses the appraisers'reputation. In a broad sense, identification standards can be divided into two groups as quoted standards and specialized standards. Quoted standards refers to those existing rules which can be cited directly, such as laws, statutes, regulations, principles and institutions related to auditors'litigation arising from false statements. Specialized standards represent regulations set up especially based on laws and rules and combined with specific professional knowledge focusing on specific issues in identification process, which consist of judging standards and reporting standards. Judging standards regulate the process of gathering evidences and forming expert opinions. Reporting standards are rules appraisers have to follow when reporting the opinions. The realistic base for judging the reality of auditing reports is legal truth. CPA practice guidelines provide a direct measurement to reveal legal truth. As to CPAs, judging the severity of their faults is based on how worse they fail to maintain due professional prudence. In practice, the violation of CPA practice guidelines is regarded as a substitute indicator. To determine whether the auditor committed intentionally or negligently should take into account the nature and importance of auditing failure, and whether the auditor has followed CPA practice guidelines and so on.
(5) Study on identification procedure and admissibility system of expert opinion. CPAs'liability identification involves a serial of specific procedures and systems, which are mutually interrelate and independent. The identification procedure can be divided into three parts, which are start-up process, implementation process and admissibility system of expert opinions. There are two ways to start an identification procedure. One is that the court responds to the application of litigants to start it. The other is the court starts it according to the needs of trial. The judge has the right to finally decide whether or not identification is needed. The litigant's right to apply has no effect on the discretion of judge. In order to protect litigants'interest, some specific regulations should be set up. It is to say, in certain cases or under certain circumstances, identification procedures must be started up according to the law. The implementation process is made up of the consignation and acceptance of identification, operating identification, and issuing an expert opinion report, etc. Whether the expert opinion is admitted as direct evidence is decided by the judge. The majority of judges are not experts of accounting or auditing. For this reason, to make sure the judge get a reasonable evaluation and then guide lawyers and litigants, an admissibility system of expert opinion should be set up, which consists of cross-examination process, admissibility rules and admissibility announcement. The expert opinion should be cross-examined and the appraiser has to testify at the trial. The process of cross-examination may not only help litigants get better understanding about expert opinion so as to avoid unnecessary repeated identification, but also help judges avoid credulity and form a correct conviction. Possible errors might be exposed during the process as well. In addition, once appraisers required to testify at the trial become into a common scene, it will also stimulate appraisers to be conscientious in their work. The admissibility of expert opinion is based on the testimony subject, the normality of its preparation process and the testimony admissibility process. The judge should give the reasons whether the expert opinion is admissible or not in adjudicative document.
(6) Analysis of rights, obligations and responsibilities of appraisers. To insure appraisers operating smoothly and making objective and fair opinion, it is necessary to grant appraisers suitable rights, obligations and legal responsibilities. Rights and obligations connect to each other. Obligations also cannot be separated from responsibilities. In addition to rights and obligations endowed by existing laws and regulations, supplements should be made. On the side of right, juridical protection is necessary, and appraisers have the right to know whether the expert opinion is admissible. On the obligation side, appraisers should make a pledge and be supervised by judges and related parties. If appraisers against the obligations, they should be claimed with criminal, civil and administrative liability. Compared with other nations, administrative penalty is relatively weak in China, which cannot meet the needs to regulating identification activities. In addition to usual administrative penalties like warning and deregistration, authorities (Ministry of Finance and Judicial Department) could refer to the section No.8 of the'Administrative Punishment Law' to introduce fines and forfeiture of payment when appraisers against their obligations. At last, professional bodies like CICPA could also carry out industry self-discipline punishments and penalties.
论文在借鉴审计学、经济学和法学三个学科领域的相关研究成果及司法实践经验的基础上,以规范研究方法为主,结合实证研究中的案例分析法,对我国注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建问题进行了较为全面、系统、深入的研究。其基本思路是：首先对注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的基本理论问题进行分析,进而从审计学、经济学、法学三个学科的不同视角为注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制研究寻找理论基础,然后在此基础上初步建立起注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的基本框架,具体包括注册会计师执业责任鉴定主体制度、鉴定技术标准、鉴定程序制度、鉴定意见的采信机制和鉴定人的权责制度等。
(1)注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的基本理论。注册会计师执业责任鉴定是一种法律服务行为,是鉴定人运用专门知识作用于社会、服务于社会的活动,在当事人主义诉讼模式下为当事人提供服务,在职权主义诉讼模式下为法官提供服务。注册会计师执业责任鉴定具有专业性、中立性以及主观性与客观性相结合的基本特征,可以为法官提供借以查明案件事实、做出正确裁决的依据,也是鉴别、认定其他证据是否具有真实性、可靠性的重要途径。从审计学的角度来看,注册会计师审计法律责任的界定实质上是审计期望差距动态平衡的过程,是在公众期望和职业界期望之间寻求一种协调关系。在诉讼中引入注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制,关注注册会计师审计的特性和社会责任,由独立的、权威的第三方出具专业的鉴定意见提供给法官作为裁量的依据,有利于协调社会公众、法律界与会计职业界之间的认识分歧,平衡公众利益和注册会计师职业权益,避免注册会计师承担过重的、不切合实际的责任,为注册会计师行业提供健康发展的空间。从经济学的角度来看,引入注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制不仅仅是在诉讼活动中增加了一项鉴定程序,社会将为整个注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建和运行付出不小的成本。注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制能带来的直接收益是提高审判的效率和正确性,提高审判效率可以降低诉讼成本。总体上构建注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的收益大于成本,符合经济原则。从证据法学的角度来看,注册会计师执业责任鉴定作为专业技术鉴定的一个特殊功能就是,通过这种专业认定,能够使会计师事务所提供的会计审计证据在法庭认定案件事实时最终产生证据效力。
(2)注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制框架的设计。“公正与效率”是一切现代制度设计中应遵循的共同价值目标,注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制设计的最终目标是有利于维护当事人的合法权益,有利于法律正确实施,促进司法公正,提高司法效率。注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制设计对公正的价值目标的追求体现在保障鉴定主体的中立性,鉴定程序的公正性,鉴定标准的科学性和统一性。注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制设计对效率价值的追求体现在,通过合理的制度设计使得地位中立的鉴定人通过合理的鉴定程序,依据科学、统一的鉴定技术标准,在合理的鉴定时限内,出具客观、中立、权威的鉴定意见,避免非正常的重复鉴定、多头鉴定和鉴定分歧。注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制是指规范注册会计师执业责任鉴定活动的制度、规章、规则及其相互作用方式的总称。大体上说,主要可分为鉴定主体制度、鉴定技术标准、鉴定程序制度三个模块,在这三个模块之下又包括各项具体制度。
(3)注册会计师执业责任鉴定主体制度设计。科学合理的鉴定主体制度是整个鉴定机制的核心,决定着整个鉴定机制的有效运行和在民事诉讼中积极作用的发挥。我国对鉴定人采取的是鉴定权主义原则,只有经过国家主管部门资格认证的人员才能从事鉴定工作,而且鉴定人一般需依附于鉴定机构才能开展鉴定工作。作为独立于公、检、法、司及其他行政机关设立的中介机构,注册会计师执业责任鉴定委员会的成立消除了传统鉴定模式中“自侦自鉴”、“自诉自鉴”、“自审自鉴”的嫌疑,是注册会计师执业责任鉴定的适格主体。目前这一鉴定主体仍有需要改进的地方,具体设想包括改革鉴定委员会的管理方式、实行二元鉴定主体制、建立鉴定人名册制度等。建议中国注册会计师执业责任鉴定委员会应由财政部(经财政部授权,具体由中国注册会计师协会代为行使管理权)和司法部共同领导管理,并参照由司法部统一制定的司法鉴定机构审核标准对执业责任鉴定委员会进行年度审核。同时,组建省级鉴定委员会,分别由省注协和司法部门共同领导和管理。注册会计师执业责任鉴定主体由鉴定委员会和鉴定人共同构成,实行二元鉴定主体制,彻底解决一元制下因法官和当事人无法对鉴定主体出具的鉴定结论进行质询进而影响鉴定结论的公正性和权威性的缺陷。司法部门可以在注协的协助下,经过审查、公示、批准程序,按照公开、择优录用的原则,将符合注册会计师执业责任鉴定资格和能力条件的鉴定人列入本级鉴定委员会的名册。在名册中应当明确载明鉴定人的简历、学历、学术水平、鉴定经验、有关论著情况等等。名册可以刊登在专业网站上,并置备于法院、律师事务所、会计师事务所和其他相关场所,以备法院或当事人选任。
(4)注册会计师执业责任鉴定技术标准研究。建立统一的注册会计师执业责任鉴定技术标准是鉴定结论的证据性质所决定的,既是保证鉴定质量,维护司法公正的需要,也是维护鉴定人职业信誉的需要。广义的注册会计师执业责任鉴定技术标准可大致分为引用技术标准和专用技术标准两大类。引用技术标准是指已有的、直接被引用作为依据的鉴定技术标准,包括现有的与注册会计师审计报告虚假陈述有关的法律、法规、规章、准则、制度标准。专用技术标准是指根据国家相关法律、法规、规章、准则、制度,针对注册会计师执业责任鉴定中所涉及的具体问题,结合科学技术或者专门知识所制定的技术标准和技术规范。专用技术标准又可以分为判定标准和报告标准,其中判定标准是鉴定人从事鉴定业务过程中搜集鉴定证据、形成鉴定意见所遵循的标准；报告标准是鉴定人在出具鉴定意见书所遵循的标准。对审计报告真实性衡量的现实标准是法律真实,注册会计执业准则是衡量法律真实的直接依据。对于注册会计师,对法律要求的“应有的职业谨慎”的违反程度是判断注册会计师主观过失的客观标准,落实到可执行的层面,这一判断标准应是“注册会计师执业准则”。在司法实践中,对故意的推定和过失程度大小的判断应建立在综合考察审计失败的性质及其重大性、注册会计师的执业行为是否按照执业准则的要求进行等因素的基础上加以判断。
(5)注册会计执业责任鉴定程序与鉴定意见的采信机制。注册会计师执业责任鉴定涉及到一系列相互联系又相互独立的具体程序和制度,其流程大致可分为鉴定的启动、鉴定的实施、鉴定意见的采信三个组成部分。注册会计师执业责任鉴定程序的启动应主要通过两个途径：一是由法院根据案件审理需要直接启动；二是由当事人提出申请经法院同意后启动。法官掌握了鉴定启动的最终决定权,当事人的鉴定申请权并不影响法官对鉴定的自由裁量权。为了保证当事人的鉴定申请权落到实处,有必要设置必须鉴定的具体规则,也就是说法律必须规定,当某类案件或某种情况发生时必须交付鉴定。注册会计师执业责任鉴定实施程序包括鉴定的委托与受理、鉴定的具体实施、鉴定意见书的出具等步骤。鉴定人出具的鉴定意见是否被法庭采信,以作为案件裁决的直接证据,完全由法官自由裁量。绝大多数法官并非会计审计专家,为了保证法官能够合理地评价、采信证据,也为了能对当事人和律师起到指引作用,我们还需要建立注册会计师执业责任鉴定意见的采信机制,包括鉴定意见的质证制度、采信要件和采信说明制度等。鉴定意见必须经过质证才能作为认定案件事实的依据,通过当庭质证,鉴定人就有关问题作出解释,既有利于当事人理解并接受鉴定意见,从而避免不必要的重复鉴定,也有利于通过质证发现鉴定意见可能存在的错误,从而维护当事人的合法权益。质证的过程同样也可以帮助并非会计审计专家的法官避免陷入对鉴定意见的盲目信任中,帮助法官形成正确的内心确信,从而对于是否采信鉴定意见作出正确的判断。此外,一旦鉴定人出庭作证成为一种普遍做法,也可以更好地促进鉴定人在鉴定工作中认真负责,确保鉴定意见的公正性。鉴定意见的采信要件包括鉴定主体适格、鉴定程序合法、采信程序合法。根据公开原则,法官应当在裁判文书中公开其采信或不采信鉴定意见的理由。
(6)注册会计师执业责任鉴定人的权责制度。为了保障注册会计师执业责任鉴定人能够顺利地从事鉴定活动,保证鉴定意见的客观公正,必须赋予鉴定人必要的权利和相应的义务以及法律责任。权利与义务相辅相成,义务又与责任密不可分,鉴定人的权利、义务和法律责任制度共同构成鉴定人权责制度。在完善注册会计师执业责任鉴定人的权利和义务方面,除了现行法律法规所赋予鉴定人的基本权利和义务之外,权利方面应增加司法保护权以及知悉鉴定意见的采信情况和相关裁判结果的权利等,义务方面还应增加宣誓的义务、接受法官或当事人监督的义务等。当鉴定人违反法定义务时,应依法追究鉴定人的法律责任,包括刑事责任、民事责任和行政责任。对于鉴定人故意作出虚假鉴定,隐匿事实真相,扰乱诉讼秩序,构成犯罪行为的,应追究刑事责任,以维护司法公正。如果鉴定人因故意或重大过失而导致错误的鉴定结论,并且造成了当事人的损失,则鉴定人须承担民事责任,赔偿当事人的损失。相比其他国家的做法,目前我国对鉴定人的违法行为行政处罚手段的相对单薄,缺乏统一规范,还不能完全满足规范司法鉴定活动、建立司法鉴定新秩序的需要。主管部门(财政部和司法部)对注册会计师执业责任鉴定人违法行为的行政处罚除了警告、停止执业、撤销登记等方式之外,还可以参考我国《行政处罚法》第8条列示的行政处罚种类的规定,引入罚款和没收酬金等方式。除此之外,专业团体(中注协)还可以对鉴定人专家责任进行追究,采取行业自律性的处罚和惩戒措施。
In recent years, a series of financial fraud scandals in public companies have been exposed. The auditors always act in collusion with those companies. The dishonesty of auditors has caused a big problem in security market. The lack of civil liability and low non-compliance cost for auditors brings about auditors'frequent violations of the law and discipline. Compared with relying on the conscience and professional ethics of auditors only, a sound legal supervision mechanism could be more effective in preventing auditors from seeking for profit unscrupulously. In order to restrict the auditing collusion, the litigation risk and civil liability of auditors should be strengthened and disciplinary systems also need to be built up to increase auditors' awareness of litigation risk and auditing quality. On January 9,2003, the Supreme People's Court in China promulgated a judicial interpretation of'Several Provisions on Trial of Civil Compensation Cases Arising from False Representation in the Securities Market'. On June 11,2007, another judicial interpretation is issued as'Several Provisions on the Trial of Cases Involving Civil Tort Compensation in Connection with Audit Activities by Accounting Firms'. Those provisions provide practical guideline in the identification of civil liability of accounting firms to ensure the sound development of market economy and safeguard the public interest and the lawful rights and interests of investors, which is also beneficial to the development of China's CPA industry. Although there are quite a few accounting firms convicted of the civil liability for false representation until now, it is predictable that litigation risk for auditors is going to increase along with the continuous improvement of relative regulations and the establishment of civil compensation mechanism in security market. Considering the high professional of audit service and the complexity of evidence in such cases, if the evidences is cross-examined and confirmed just according to general rules, the judgment might be insufficient and defective from professional angle and the punishment on accounting firms might be too heavy or too light due to different applications of general rules. The best way to remedy the defects is to build up a set of identification mechanism of CPAs'liability. Therefore, the establishment of liability identification mechanism reflecting CPA characteristics has become an objective demand to improve legal system in the socialist market economy. Expert opinions will become authoritative and important basis for determining whether auditors should assume the civil compensation liability. It provides expert support for the justice trial of cases arising from auditors'false representation, which is beneficial to protect investors' and auditors'lawful rights and interests.
This paper is based on relevant researches in the field of auditing, economics and law. Normative analysis and case study approach are adopted in the research involving how to construct a set of identification mechanism of CPAs'liability in China. The paper began with an analysis of the basic theories about the identification mechanism of CPAs'liability from different perspectives. Next, it tried to establish a basic framework of the identification mechanism, which integrates subject system of identification, identification standards, identification procedure, admissibility system of expert opinion, and rights and obligations of appraisers. The main contents are as following:
(1) Basic theories about identification mechanism of CPAs' liability. The identification of CPAs'liability is a sort of legal service. The expert witnesses serve the society based on their professional knowledge. They serve litigant parties in the adversary system and serve judges in the inquisitory system. The identification activity is characterized by profession, neutrality and the combination of subjectivity and objectivity. It helps judges to investigate the truth, make right decisions and check the reliability of other evidences. From the perspective of auditing, the definition of audit liability represents a dynamite balance process, which coordinates the public expectation and the profession expectation. Introducing the identification mechanism into the lawsuits and focusing CPAs' characteristics and social responsibility, it is beneficial to settle different views among public, legal profession and audit profession. It makes a balance between public interest and CPAs'interests, which helps the CPA industry to avoid from unrealistic responsibilities and develop soundly. From the view of economics, although the identification mechanism will cost a lot for its construction and operation, it will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of trials which could lower the costs of litigation further. Therefore, in the long-term, the benefits will overwhelm the costs. From the perspective of Law, a special function of the authentication is to produce the effectiveness of evidence when the court finds the facts of the case. And from the view of evidence law, as a professional identification, one of its special functions is to confirm the accounting and auditing evidences provided by accounting firms and make them admissible at last in the court.
(2) Analysis about the basic framework of the identification mechanism of CPAs' liability.'Justice and efficiency'should be a uniform value objective pursued in every institutional design. The final aim of identification mechanism is to protect litigants' legal rights, to be in favor of applying laws properly, and to promote judicial fairness and judicial efficiency. The value objective of justice has reflected in ensuring that the identification subject is neutral, the identification procedure is fair and the identification standards are scientific and unified. The value objective of efficiency is embodied in an appropriate mechanism which makes each neutral expert witness act according to the reasonable identification procedure and scientific and unified standards, then issue objective, neutral and authoritative opinions in time and avoid abnormal repeated or multiple identifications. The identification mechanism of CPAs' liability is considered as a group of relevant institutions, regulations, rules and their interactions. It can be divided into three parts in generally as identification subject system, standards of identification and identification procedures. Each part consists of different systems and institutions.
(3) Design of the subject system of identification. A scientific and reasonable identification subject system is the core of the whole identification mechanism, which influences on whether the mechanism works efficiently and plays a positive role in lawsuits. In China only people who have got qualification can work as an appraiser in accordance with the power of expertise. The appraiser can only take the job by joining in an appraisal institution. In traditional identification mode, investigating, appealing, judging and identifying may integrate in a sole subject. So the justice is suspicious. As a sort of intermediary agency, the identification committee separate from procuratorate organs, courts, judicial and other administrative departments, which is more independent and can be a suitable subject in CPAs' liability identification. At present, there are still some improvements should be made, such as innovation of the committee's management, dual subject institution and register system of appraisers. The committee should be authorized and supervised by the Ministry of Finance and the Justice Department together. It is under the direct supervision of Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants (CICPA) and takes qualification examination each year according to regulations of judicial identification issued by the Justice Department. Meanwhile, local identification committee in each province should be set up, which is supervised by provincial institute of certified public accountants and provincial judicial department. Dual subject system means that the responsibility entity of identification is composed of by the identification committee and appraisers both. Such kind of dual subject system will amend the defects caused by sole subject system. In a sole subject system, judges and litigants always cannot inquiry expert opinions because of appraisers'absence, which could affect the fairness and authority of expert opinions. With the help of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants, judicial department can make a personnel roster of qualified and capable appraisers after the process of investigating, publishing and approving openly. The roster records some relevant personal information for each appraiser such as resume, educational background, academic level, identification experience and published works etc. It can be displayed on the professional websites and provided in courts, law firms or other relevant places for judges'or litigants' selection.
(4) Research on the standards of identification. Considering the nature of identification evidence, it is necessary to establish a set of consolidated identification standards. On one hand, it ensures the quality of identification and defenses the judicial fairness. On the other hand, it also defenses the appraisers'reputation. In a broad sense, identification standards can be divided into two groups as quoted standards and specialized standards. Quoted standards refers to those existing rules which can be cited directly, such as laws, statutes, regulations, principles and institutions related to auditors'litigation arising from false statements. Specialized standards represent regulations set up especially based on laws and rules and combined with specific professional knowledge focusing on specific issues in identification process, which consist of judging standards and reporting standards. Judging standards regulate the process of gathering evidences and forming expert opinions. Reporting standards are rules appraisers have to follow when reporting the opinions. The realistic base for judging the reality of auditing reports is legal truth. CPA practice guidelines provide a direct measurement to reveal legal truth. As to CPAs, judging the severity of their faults is based on how worse they fail to maintain due professional prudence. In practice, the violation of CPA practice guidelines is regarded as a substitute indicator. To determine whether the auditor committed intentionally or negligently should take into account the nature and importance of auditing failure, and whether the auditor has followed CPA practice guidelines and so on.
(5) Study on identification procedure and admissibility system of expert opinion. CPAs'liability identification involves a serial of specific procedures and systems, which are mutually interrelate and independent. The identification procedure can be divided into three parts, which are start-up process, implementation process and admissibility system of expert opinions. There are two ways to start an identification procedure. One is that the court responds to the application of litigants to start it. The other is the court starts it according to the needs of trial. The judge has the right to finally decide whether or not identification is needed. The litigant's right to apply has no effect on the discretion of judge. In order to protect litigants'interest, some specific regulations should be set up. It is to say, in certain cases or under certain circumstances, identification procedures must be started up according to the law. The implementation process is made up of the consignation and acceptance of identification, operating identification, and issuing an expert opinion report, etc. Whether the expert opinion is admitted as direct evidence is decided by the judge. The majority of judges are not experts of accounting or auditing. For this reason, to make sure the judge get a reasonable evaluation and then guide lawyers and litigants, an admissibility system of expert opinion should be set up, which consists of cross-examination process, admissibility rules and admissibility announcement. The expert opinion should be cross-examined and the appraiser has to testify at the trial. The process of cross-examination may not only help litigants get better understanding about expert opinion so as to avoid unnecessary repeated identification, but also help judges avoid credulity and form a correct conviction. Possible errors might be exposed during the process as well. In addition, once appraisers required to testify at the trial become into a common scene, it will also stimulate appraisers to be conscientious in their work. The admissibility of expert opinion is based on the testimony subject, the normality of its preparation process and the testimony admissibility process. The judge should give the reasons whether the expert opinion is admissible or not in adjudicative document.
(6) Analysis of rights, obligations and responsibilities of appraisers. To insure appraisers operating smoothly and making objective and fair opinion, it is necessary to grant appraisers suitable rights, obligations and legal responsibilities. Rights and obligations connect to each other. Obligations also cannot be separated from responsibilities. In addition to rights and obligations endowed by existing laws and regulations, supplements should be made. On the side of right, juridical protection is necessary, and appraisers have the right to know whether the expert opinion is admissible. On the obligation side, appraisers should make a pledge and be supervised by judges and related parties. If appraisers against the obligations, they should be claimed with criminal, civil and administrative liability. Compared with other nations, administrative penalty is relatively weak in China, which cannot meet the needs to regulating identification activities. In addition to usual administrative penalties like warning and deregistration, authorities (Ministry of Finance and Judicial Department) could refer to the section No.8 of the'Administrative Punishment Law' to introduce fines and forfeiture of payment when appraisers against their obligations. At last, professional bodies like CICPA could also carry out industry self-discipline punishments and penalties.
引文
参见刘燕.会计师民事责任研究——公众利益与职业利益的平衡[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2004年,第36页。
①1996年4月4日最高人民法院发布法函[1996]56号《关于会计师事务所为企业出具虚假验资证明应如何处理的复函》之后,因虚假验资报告而引起的针对会计师事务所的诉讼大量发生,大有重演西方国家针对注册会计师的“诉讼爆炸”之势,相关介绍参见中国注册会计师协会编.中国注册会计师法律责任——案例与研究[M].沈阳：辽宁出版社,1998年,第11-27页。
①吴弘.中国证券市场发展的法律调控[M].北京：中国法律出版社,2001年,第266页。
霍宪丹.关于司法鉴定工作若干问题的探讨[J].司法研究.2001年第2期,第24页。
陈桂明,刘田玉.司法鉴定的性质与鉴定人的司法责任.载于证据学论坛[M]第四卷.北京：人民检察出版社,2002年,第354-355页。
孙业群.司法鉴定制度改革研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2002年,第55页。
转引自刘刘辉主编.高级审计研究[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社,2009年,第230页。
参见赵保卿.注册会计师审计法律责任研究[J].审计研究.2002年第3期,第38-42页。
引自赵保卿.注册会计师审计法律责任研究[J].审计研究.2002年第3期,第40页。
转引自张建军.审计理论中的合理保证概念[J].当代财经.1995年第12期,第47页。
引自(美)理查德·A·波斯纳.法律的经济分析.蒋兆康译.北京：中国大西科全书出版社,1997年,第5-6页。
同上。
(美)理查德·A·波斯纳.法律的经济分析.蒋兆康译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1997年,第6页。
本部分的分析思路主要参考了覃东.我国会计法律问题的经济学分析[D].上海：复旦大学博士论文,2002年,第68-71页。
这里的“定罪”泛指被判定为负有责任,并不表示刑事罪名成立。参见覃东.我国会计法律问题的经济学分析[D].上海：复旦大学博士论文,2002年,第68页。
Hardwig J. Epistemic Dependence[J].Journal of Philosophy,1985,Vol.82:338, fn.2.
王亚新.诉讼变革中的民事诉讼[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2001年,第112页。
①参见蒋尧明.注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建[J].会计研究,2009年第2期,第82页。
①按照我国《医疗事故处理条例》的规定,医疗事故鉴定由中华医学会组织,而在实践中中华医学会的中立性一直饱受诟病。
②此部分的观点主要参考了蒋尧明.注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建[J].会计研究,2009年第2期,第83页。
①浦周伟、蔡国芹.论我国司法鉴定人制度[J].中国司法鉴定,2007年第5期,第18页。
这里的鉴定指的是法医类、物证类、音像资料等的鉴定。
②蒋尧明.注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建.会计研究[J],2009年第2期,第83页。
①蒋尧明.注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建[J].会计研究,2009年第2期,第83页。
本部分的观点主要参考蒋尧明.上市公司会计信息虚假陈述民事责任[M].第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004年,第81-82页。
本案例引自李若山.审计案例——国外诉讼案例[M].沈阳：辽宁出版社,1998年,第31页。
王卫国.过错责任原则：第三次勃兴[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000年,第250页。
王卫国.过错责任原则：第三次勃兴[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000年,第262页。
克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔.欧洲比较侵权行为法(下册).焦美华译.第372-373页。转引自颜延.从注册会计师的注意义务看独立审计准则的法律地位[J].会计研究,2003年第6期,第35页。
①刘燕.法律界与会计界的分歧究竟在哪里.我国注册会计师法律责任——案例与研究[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社,1998年,第126页。
本案例的数据资料来自媒体的公开报导,并参考赵敏.从德勤“科龙门”看审计失败的原因.经营管理者,2009年第8期,第24页。
①蒋尧明.上市公司会计信息虚假陈述民事责任[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004年,第132页。
Cox, Hillman and Langevoort, Securities Regulation:Cases and Materials(second edition)[M], p746.
①参见Basic Inc.v.Levinson,485 U.S.224(1988).
周学峰.公司审计与专家责任[D].北京：中国政法大学博士论文,2004年,107页。
②Basic Inc.v.Levinson,485 U.S.224(1988).
Cammer v.Bloom,711 F.Supp.1264(D.N.J.1989).参见 Bernard, Botosan, and Phillips. Challenges to the Efficient Market Hypothesis:Limits to the Applicability of Fraud-on-the-Market Theory[J],73 Neb.L.Rev.781(1994);Barber, Griffin, and Lev, The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory and the Indicators of Common Stocks' Efficiency[J],19 Iowa J.Corp.L.285(1994).
②该案件的详细情况可参见2000年3月31日证监会《关于大庆联谊石化股份有限公司违反证券法规行为的处罚决定》(证监罚字[2000]16号)。
①蒋尧明.上市公司会计信息虚假陈述民事责任[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004年,第132页。
②排除介入因素的一个典型案例是美国第十一巡回法庭的上诉法院在Robbins v.Koger Properties,Inc案中,认为公司股票价格下降是由于公司分红的削减造成的,公司分红减少的发生是因为公司将来财务状况不能支撑其出卖财产,而不是因为公司会计报告夸大了公司的现金流量。
①参见王泽鉴.民法学说与判例研究(7)[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1998年,第88页。
参见朱剑平.东方电子案庭审激辩三大焦点[N].上海证券报,.2006年9月9日。
李国光、贾纬.证券市场虚假陈述民事赔偿制度[M].北京：法律出版社2003年版,第139-140页。
宣伟华.虚假陈述民事赔偿与投资者权益保护[M].北京：法律出版社2003年版,第60-62页。
参见徐继军著.专家证人研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004年,第180页。
①徐听.英国民事诉讼与民事司法改革[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002年,第342页。
②李玉华,杨军生.司法鉴定的诉讼化[M].北京：.中国人民公安大学出版社,2006年,第49页。
①谢怀拭译.德意志联邦共和国民事诉讼法..北京：中国法制出版社,2001年,第99页。
②(日)谷口安平著.程序的正义与诉讼.王亚新,刘荣军译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002年,第318页。
③(美)约翰·H·朗本.德国民事诉讼程序的优越性.陈湘林译,转引自(德)米夏埃尔等编.德国民事诉讼法学文萃.赵秀举译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005年,第680-681页。
④王景琦编译.法国民事诉讼程序中的鉴定人.人民检察.2000年第12期,第23页。
⑤参见杜志淳.霍宪丹.中国司法鉴定制度研究.北京：中国法制出版社,2002年,第46页。
①蒋尧明.注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建.会计研究,2009年第2期,第86页。
①蒋尧明,吉伟莉.注册会计师执业责任鉴定若干疑难问题研究[J].中央财经大学学报,2010年第4期,第56页。
①相关法条的内容转引自孙业群.司法鉴定程序研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2002年,第249-252页。
《德国民事诉讼法》第410条规定：“鉴定人应在鉴定前或鉴定后宣誓。在誓词中,鉴定人应表示在要求其作的鉴定中,他公正地并依自己的良心和良知进行鉴定、或已经作了鉴定。”
③往这一阶段,对于不同类别和项目的鉴定,《德国民事诉讼法》做出了不同的规定。
④同①。
①蒋尧明.注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建[J].会计研究,2009年第2期,第86-87页。
①杜志淳,霍宪丹主持编写.中国司法鉴定制度研究[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2002年,第153页。
转引自刘革新.构建中国的司法鉴定体制[D].博士学位论文.北京：中国政法大学,2006年,第54页。
刘革新.构建中国的司法鉴定体制[D].博士学位论文.北京：中国政法大学,2006年,第68页。
(奥)凯尔森.法与国家的一般理论[M].沈宗灵译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1996年,第173页。
①王俊峰、祝庭显.论民事诉讼中鉴定人的民事损害赔偿责任[J].河南大学学报(社会科学版),1999年第5期,第72页。
[1]卞建林译.美国联邦刑事诉讼规则和证据规则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1996.
[2]陈桂明,刘田玉.司法鉴定的性质与鉴定人的司法责任.证据学论坛[M](第四卷).北京：人民检察出版社,2002.
[3]杜志淳,霍宪丹.中国司法鉴定制度研究[M].北京：法制出版社,2002.
[4]德国贝克出版社.德意志联邦共和国民事诉讼法[M].谢怀拭译.北京：中国法制出版社,2001.
[5]方道茂.我国司法鉴定管理体制研究[D].武汉：华中科技大学博士论文,2006.
[6]宫万路.鉴定制度比较研究.证据学论坛[M](第一卷).北京：中国检察出版社,2000.
[7]古鸿.验资报告的真伪由谁鉴定[J].上海会计,2000,(6)
[8](日)谷口安平.程序的正义与诉讼[M].王亚新,刘荣军译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[9]龚晓玲.关于建立注册会计师过错责任鉴定制度的思考[J].会计之友,2003,(7)
[10]霍宪丹.关于司法鉴定工作若干问题的探讨[J].司法研究,2001,(2)
[11]蒋尧明.上市公司会计信息虚假陈述民事责任[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[12]蒋尧明.注册会计师民事责任若干疑难问题研究[J].审计研究,2004,(2)
[13]蒋尧明.注册会计师审计报告虚假陈述民事责任的回顾与总结[J].当代财经,2008,(10)
[14]蒋尧明.注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建[J].会计研究,2009,(2)
[15]蒋尧明,吉伟莉.关于构建注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的思考[J].现代管理科学,2009,(12)
[16]蒋尧明,吉伟莉.注册会计师执业责任鉴定若干疑难问题研究[J].中央财经大学雪报,2010,(4)
[17]吉伟莉.注册会计师执业责任鉴定人五个问题分析[J].经济管理(新管理),2008,(12)
[18]吉伟莉.也谈审计理论中的“应有职业关注”概念[J].中国审计,2009,(9)
[19]金光正,邹明理.司法鉴定学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1995.
[20]金建华.检查会计鉴定学[M].北京：中国检查出版社,1999.
[21]金银姬,崔允铱.浅议法院司法会计鉴定证据[J].中国审计证据与方法,2001, (12)
[22]金彧昉,李若山.关于我国上市公司虚假会计信息法律责任鉴定分析[J].复旦大学学报,2003,(5)
[23](奥)凯尔森.法与国家的一般理论[M].沈宗灵译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1996.
[24](美)理查德·A·波斯纳.法律的经济分析[M].蒋兆康译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1997.
[25]李国光,贾纬.证券市场虚假陈述民事赔偿制度[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[26]李若山.审计案例——国外审计诉讼案例[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社,1998.
[27]李若山,周勤业.注册会计师法律责任理论与实务[M].北京：中国时代经济出版社,2002.
[28]李玉华,杨军生.司法鉴定的诉讼化[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2006.
[29]雷华.司法会计鉴定人出庭作证若干问题研究[J].中国司法鉴定,2003,(4)
[30]刘明辉.高级审计研究[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社,2009.
[31]刘燕.会计师民事责任研究——公众利益与职业利益的平衡[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2004.
[32]刘革新.构建中国的司法鉴定体制[D].北京：中国政法大学博士论文,2006.
[33](美)罗伯特·K·莫茨,(埃及)侯赛因·A·夏拉夫.审计理论结构[M].文硕译.北京：中国商业出版社,1990.
[34](英)马尔科姆·卢瑟福.经济学中的制度[M].陈建波,郁仲莉译.北京：中国社会科学出版社,1999.
[35]毛岩亮.民间审计责任研究[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社.1999.
[36](美)米尔顿·德·格林.美国民事诉讼程序概论[M].上海大学文学院法律系译.北京：法律出版社,1988.
[37](德)米夏埃尔·施蒂尔纳编.德国民事诉讼法学文萃[M].赵秀举译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[38](日)能见善久.论专家民事责任——其理论框架的建议.民商法论丛[M](第五卷).梁慧星译.北京：法律出版社,1997.
[39](美)尼古拉斯·麦考罗,斯蒂文·G·曼德姆.经济学与法律——从波斯纳到后现代主义.[M].吴晓露等译.北京：法律出版社,2005.
[40]庞建兵.我国司法会计的现状与发展[J].中国司法鉴定,2001,(2)
[41]浦周伟,蔡国芹.论我国司法鉴定人制度[J].中国司法鉴定,2007,(5)
[42](日)浦川道太郎.德国的专家责任.民商法论丛[M](第五卷).梁慧星译.北京：法律出版社,1997.
[43]钱弘道.经济分析法学[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[44]屈介民.专家民事责任论[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社,1998.
[45]沈达明.英美证据法[M].北京：中信出版社,1996.
[46]沈红,陆永伟.司法会计鉴定证据与诉讼证据的关系[J].中国司法鉴定,2003,(1)
[47]孙业群.司法鉴定制度改革研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2002.
[48]覃东.我国会计法律问题的经济学分析[D].上海：复旦大学博士论文,2002.
[49]王利明.惩罚性赔偿研究[J].民商法(人大复印资料),2000,(10)
[50]王景琦编译.法国民事诉讼程序中的鉴定人[J].人民检察,2000,(12)
[51]王俊峰,祝庭显.论民事诉讼中鉴定人的民事损害赔偿责任[J].河南大学学报(社会科学版),1999,(5)
[52]王亚新.诉讼变革中的民事诉讼[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2001.
[53]王卫国.过错责任原则：第三次勃兴[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000.
[54]王泽鉴.民法学说与判例研究(7)[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1998.
[55]伟仲国.司法会计与鉴定[M].大连：东北财经出版社,1987.
[56]文建秀.证券市场信息披露中注册会计师的法律责任[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[57]文硕.世界审计史[M].北京：中国审计出版社,1990.
[58]吴弘.中国证券市场发展的法律调控[M].北京：中国法律出版社,2001.
[59]谢盛纹.审计证据理论研究[M].成都：西南财经大学出版社.2007.
[60]谢荣.市场经济中的民间审计责任[M].上海：上海社会科学出版社,1998.
[61]邢颖.证券公开文件虚假陈述民事责任的构成要件.经济法论丛[M](第2卷)北京：法律出版社,2001.
[62]徐继军.专家证人研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[63]徐昕.英国民事诉讼与民事司法改革[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[64]宣伟华.虚假陈述民事赔偿与投资者权益保护[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[65]颜延.从注册会计师的注意义务看独立审计准则的法律地位[J].会计研究,2003,(6)
[66]于朝.司法会计学[M].太原：山西经济出版社,1995.
[67]曾世雄.损害赔偿法原理[M].台北：台北出版社,1996.
[68]张建军.审计理论中的合理保证概念[J].当代财经,1995,(12)
[69]张民安,龚赛红.专业人士所承担的过错侵权责任[J].法学评论,2002, (6)
[70]张蕊,谢盛纹.论注册会计师民事责任制度的建立与完善[J].审计研究,2002,(4)
[71]张蕊.注册会计师的民事责任及其抗辩[J].会计研究,2003,(1)
[72]张新宝.中国侵权行为法[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[73]赵保卿.注册会计师审计法律责任研究[J].审计研究,2002,(3)
[74]赵如兰,戴建宏.对司法会计几个问题的思考[J].财经科学,2001,(2)
[75]郑顺炎.证券市场不当行为的法律实证[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[76]郑朝晖.谁来鉴定审计失败[J].中国审计,2001,(4)
[77]周学峰.公司审计与专家责任[D].北京：中国政法大学博士论文,2004.
[78]周志诚.注册会计师法律责任——中国海峡两岸案例比较研究[M].上海：上海财经大学出版社,2001.
[79]中国注册会计师协会.中国注册会计师法律责任——案例与研究[M].沈阳：辽宁出版社,1998.
[80]朱剑平.东方电子案庭审激辩三大焦点[N].上海证券报,2006-9-9.
[81]Acemoglu, Daron and Gietzmann, Miles B. Auditor independence. Incomplete Contracts and the Role of Legal Liability[J]. The European Accounting Review,1997, Vol.6:355.
[82]AICPA. The Commission on Auditors'Responsibilities, Report, Conclusions, and Recommendations (Cohen Commission Report) [R]. New York:AICPA,1978.
[83]Barbara Black, Fraud on the Market:A Criticism of Dispensing with Reliance Requirements in Certain Open Market Transactions[J].62 N.C.L.Rev.435,1984.
[84]Barber, Griffin, and Lev, The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory and the Indicators of Common Stocks' Efficiency [J].19 Iowa J.Corp.L.285,1994.
[85]Bernard, Botosan, and Phillips, Challenges to the Efficient Market Hypothesis: Limits to the Applicability of Fraud-on-the-Market Theory [J].73 Neb.L.Rev.781,1994.
[86]Botina K Peterson&David R. Barnhill, Accountants as Expert Witness:A Primer on Meeting Daubert Challenges [J]. Journal of Forensic Accounting,2003, Vol.IV:105-112.
[87]Bowles & Jones, Professional Liability:an Economic Analysis[M]. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press,1989.
[88]Baxt, The Modern Company Auditor-A Nineteen-Century Watchdog[J]. Modern Law Review,1970,Vol.33:413.
[89]Carney, The Limits of the Fraud on the Market Doctrine [J].44 Business Law. 1989,Vol.44:1271-1277.
[90]Christopher J. Napier, Intersections of Law and Accountancy:Unlimited Auditor Liability in the United Kingdom[J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,1998,Vol. 23, No. I:105-128.
[91]Collier, Jesse Newton, New Opportunities and Challenges for Today's CPA in the Legal Arena[J]. Journal of Accountancy,1989, Vol.1:66.
[92]Cooper. B.J.& Barkoczy, M.L. Third Party Liability:The Auditor's Lament[J]. Managerial Auditing Journal,1994,Vol.9 (5):31.
[93]Cox, Hillman and Langevoort, Securities Regulation:Cases and Materials (second edition) [M].1998:746.
[94]Dicherson, R.W.V., Accountants and the Law of Negligence[M]. Toronto:Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants,1966.
[95]Dugdale, A.M.& Stanton, K.M., Professional Negligence[M].3rd edition, London: Butterworths,1998.
[96]Dwayne Cox, Title Company v. County Recorder:A Case Study in Open Records Litigation[J].The American Archivist,2004,Vol.67 (Spring/Summer):46-57.
[97]Godsell, D. Auditors'Legal Liability and the Expectation Gap[J]. Australia Accounting,1991, Vol.61.
[98]Green, D. Litigation Risk for Auditors and the Risk Society[J]. Critical Perspective Accounting.1999,Vol.10:339
[99]Hardwig, J. Epistemic Dependence [J]. Journal of Philosophy,1985,Vol.82:338.
[100]Hill, J. W. Winter. A call for papers:Auditor liability[J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,1994,Vol.13 (4):363-365.
[101]Jackson, Rupert M.& Powell, John L., Professional Negligence[M].4th edition, London:Sweet & Maxwell,1996.
[102]Kenneth W. Robinson, Accountants' Usefulness as Expert Witness Grows Complex[J].Journal of Accountancy (pre-1986). New York:May 1951.Vol.91:000005:686.
[103]Lawrence A. Gordon and Stephen E. Loeb, The Legal Liability of Independent Auditors[J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,1997, Vol.16:337.
[104]Levine, H.J.Morris, A.Curry, R.Sobel, et al. Careers to Count on[J]. U.S.News and World Report, Feb.18,2002.
[105]Liggio,C.D., The Expectation Gap:The Accountant's Waterloo[J]. Journal of Contemporary Business,1974,Vol.3.
[106]Macey, Miller, Mitchell and Netter, Lessons From Financial Economics: Materiality, Reliance, and Extending the Reach of Basic v.Levinson[J].77 Va.L.Rev.1017,1991.
[107]Marshall A. Geiger, K. Raghunandan, Dasaratha V. Rama, Auditor decision-making in different litigation environments:The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, audit reports and audit firm size[J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,2006,Vol.15:332-353.
[108]Max Lourie, Forensic Accounting[J].New York Certified Public Accountant (pre-1986). New York:Nov 1953.Vol.23, Iss.000011:696.
[109]Mess, Michael A., Accountants and the Common Law:Liability to Third Parties[J]. Notre Dame Law Review,1977,Vol.52:838.
[110]Michael J. Ferguson. Abdul Majid, To Sue or Not to Sue:An Experimental Study of Factors Affecting Hong Kong Liquidators Audit Litigation Decisions[J]. Journal of Business Ethics.2003,Vol.46:363-374.
[111]Mohamed E. Bayou, Alan Reinstein, A Systemic View of Fraud Explaining its Strategies, Anatomy and Process[J]. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,2001,Vol. 12:383-403.
[112]Nicholas L.Georgakopoulos, Frauds, Markets, and Fraud-on-the-Market:The Tortured Transition of Justifiable Reliance from Deceit to Securities Fraud[J].49 U.Miami L.Rev.671,1995.
[113]Olinsky, AlanD, Mangiameli, Paul M & Chen, Shaw K, Statistical support of forensic auditing[J]. Interfaces. Linthicum,1996, Vol.26, Iss 6.Nov/Dee:95.
[114]Poter,B. An Empirical Study of the Audit Expectation-Performance Gap[J]. Accounting and Business Research,1993,Vol.24,no.93:49-68.
[115]Randall E. LaSalle. The civil justice system and going concern audit reports: Comments on "Auditors'decision-making under going concern uncertainties in low litigation risk environments:Evidence from Hong Kong"[J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,2006,Vol.25:740-745.
[116]Regimes, and Big 4 Premiums:Theory and Cross-country Evidence[J]. Contemporary Accounting Research.2008.Vol.25 No.1.Spring:55-99.
[117]Rupert M. Jackson & John L. Powell. Professional negliance[M].4th edition. London:Sweet&Maxwell.1982.
[118]Sloane, Raymond T. Litigation Consulting-A Practitioner's Guide[J]. The CPA Journal,1990,Apr; 60,4. ABI/INFORM Global:16-25.
[119]Spellmire, Baliga, and Winiarski, Accounting, Auditing and Financial Malpractice[M]. Hracourt Brace&Company,1998.
[120]Stephen Fogg, Books received:Forensic accounting handbook[J]. Journal of Accountancy, NewYork:Aug1990. Vol.170,155.2:131.
[121]Susan Zhan Shu, Auditor resignations:clientele effects and legal liability[J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics,2000, Vol.29:173-205.
[122]Wardle, Peter and James, Doris, Professional Negligence:Has Hercules Given Judges More Discretion[J]. Int'l Comm. Litig. Feb.1998.
[123]Watson, S.M., The Application of "Common Sense":Liability of Auditors in New Zealand[J]. The Journal of Business Law, May.1999.
[124]Williams, Kathy, Safeguarding companies from computer/software fraud[J]. Management Accounting, Montvale:Feb.Vol.78, Iss 55.8.1997:18-27.
[125]Zeph Telpner, Miehael Mostek, Expert Witnessing in Forensic Accounting[M]. by CRC Press LLC, Boea Raton London New York Washington, D.C.2003.
①1996年4月4日最高人民法院发布法函[1996]56号《关于会计师事务所为企业出具虚假验资证明应如何处理的复函》之后,因虚假验资报告而引起的针对会计师事务所的诉讼大量发生,大有重演西方国家针对注册会计师的“诉讼爆炸”之势,相关介绍参见中国注册会计师协会编.中国注册会计师法律责任——案例与研究[M].沈阳：辽宁出版社,1998年,第11-27页。
①吴弘.中国证券市场发展的法律调控[M].北京：中国法律出版社,2001年,第266页。
霍宪丹.关于司法鉴定工作若干问题的探讨[J].司法研究.2001年第2期,第24页。
陈桂明,刘田玉.司法鉴定的性质与鉴定人的司法责任.载于证据学论坛[M]第四卷.北京：人民检察出版社,2002年,第354-355页。
孙业群.司法鉴定制度改革研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2002年,第55页。
转引自刘刘辉主编.高级审计研究[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社,2009年,第230页。
参见赵保卿.注册会计师审计法律责任研究[J].审计研究.2002年第3期,第38-42页。
引自赵保卿.注册会计师审计法律责任研究[J].审计研究.2002年第3期,第40页。
转引自张建军.审计理论中的合理保证概念[J].当代财经.1995年第12期,第47页。
引自(美)理查德·A·波斯纳.法律的经济分析.蒋兆康译.北京：中国大西科全书出版社,1997年,第5-6页。
同上。
(美)理查德·A·波斯纳.法律的经济分析.蒋兆康译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1997年,第6页。
本部分的分析思路主要参考了覃东.我国会计法律问题的经济学分析[D].上海：复旦大学博士论文,2002年,第68-71页。
这里的“定罪”泛指被判定为负有责任,并不表示刑事罪名成立。参见覃东.我国会计法律问题的经济学分析[D].上海：复旦大学博士论文,2002年,第68页。
Hardwig J. Epistemic Dependence[J].Journal of Philosophy,1985,Vol.82:338, fn.2.
王亚新.诉讼变革中的民事诉讼[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2001年,第112页。
①参见蒋尧明.注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建[J].会计研究,2009年第2期,第82页。
①按照我国《医疗事故处理条例》的规定,医疗事故鉴定由中华医学会组织,而在实践中中华医学会的中立性一直饱受诟病。
②此部分的观点主要参考了蒋尧明.注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建[J].会计研究,2009年第2期,第83页。
①浦周伟、蔡国芹.论我国司法鉴定人制度[J].中国司法鉴定,2007年第5期,第18页。
这里的鉴定指的是法医类、物证类、音像资料等的鉴定。
②蒋尧明.注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建.会计研究[J],2009年第2期,第83页。
①蒋尧明.注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建[J].会计研究,2009年第2期,第83页。
本部分的观点主要参考蒋尧明.上市公司会计信息虚假陈述民事责任[M].第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004年,第81-82页。
本案例引自李若山.审计案例——国外诉讼案例[M].沈阳：辽宁出版社,1998年,第31页。
王卫国.过错责任原则：第三次勃兴[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000年,第250页。
王卫国.过错责任原则：第三次勃兴[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000年,第262页。
克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔.欧洲比较侵权行为法(下册).焦美华译.第372-373页。转引自颜延.从注册会计师的注意义务看独立审计准则的法律地位[J].会计研究,2003年第6期,第35页。
①刘燕.法律界与会计界的分歧究竟在哪里.我国注册会计师法律责任——案例与研究[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社,1998年,第126页。
本案例的数据资料来自媒体的公开报导,并参考赵敏.从德勤“科龙门”看审计失败的原因.经营管理者,2009年第8期,第24页。
①蒋尧明.上市公司会计信息虚假陈述民事责任[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004年,第132页。
Cox, Hillman and Langevoort, Securities Regulation:Cases and Materials(second edition)[M], p746.
①参见Basic Inc.v.Levinson,485 U.S.224(1988).
周学峰.公司审计与专家责任[D].北京：中国政法大学博士论文,2004年,107页。
②Basic Inc.v.Levinson,485 U.S.224(1988).
Cammer v.Bloom,711 F.Supp.1264(D.N.J.1989).参见 Bernard, Botosan, and Phillips. Challenges to the Efficient Market Hypothesis:Limits to the Applicability of Fraud-on-the-Market Theory[J],73 Neb.L.Rev.781(1994);Barber, Griffin, and Lev, The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory and the Indicators of Common Stocks' Efficiency[J],19 Iowa J.Corp.L.285(1994).
②该案件的详细情况可参见2000年3月31日证监会《关于大庆联谊石化股份有限公司违反证券法规行为的处罚决定》(证监罚字[2000]16号)。
①蒋尧明.上市公司会计信息虚假陈述民事责任[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004年,第132页。
②排除介入因素的一个典型案例是美国第十一巡回法庭的上诉法院在Robbins v.Koger Properties,Inc案中,认为公司股票价格下降是由于公司分红的削减造成的,公司分红减少的发生是因为公司将来财务状况不能支撑其出卖财产,而不是因为公司会计报告夸大了公司的现金流量。
①参见王泽鉴.民法学说与判例研究(7)[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1998年,第88页。
参见朱剑平.东方电子案庭审激辩三大焦点[N].上海证券报,.2006年9月9日。
李国光、贾纬.证券市场虚假陈述民事赔偿制度[M].北京：法律出版社2003年版,第139-140页。
宣伟华.虚假陈述民事赔偿与投资者权益保护[M].北京：法律出版社2003年版,第60-62页。
参见徐继军著.专家证人研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004年,第180页。
①徐听.英国民事诉讼与民事司法改革[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002年,第342页。
②李玉华,杨军生.司法鉴定的诉讼化[M].北京：.中国人民公安大学出版社,2006年,第49页。
①谢怀拭译.德意志联邦共和国民事诉讼法..北京：中国法制出版社,2001年,第99页。
②(日)谷口安平著.程序的正义与诉讼.王亚新,刘荣军译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002年,第318页。
③(美)约翰·H·朗本.德国民事诉讼程序的优越性.陈湘林译,转引自(德)米夏埃尔等编.德国民事诉讼法学文萃.赵秀举译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005年,第680-681页。
④王景琦编译.法国民事诉讼程序中的鉴定人.人民检察.2000年第12期,第23页。
⑤参见杜志淳.霍宪丹.中国司法鉴定制度研究.北京：中国法制出版社,2002年,第46页。
①蒋尧明.注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建.会计研究,2009年第2期,第86页。
①蒋尧明,吉伟莉.注册会计师执业责任鉴定若干疑难问题研究[J].中央财经大学学报,2010年第4期,第56页。
①相关法条的内容转引自孙业群.司法鉴定程序研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2002年,第249-252页。
《德国民事诉讼法》第410条规定：“鉴定人应在鉴定前或鉴定后宣誓。在誓词中,鉴定人应表示在要求其作的鉴定中,他公正地并依自己的良心和良知进行鉴定、或已经作了鉴定。”
③往这一阶段,对于不同类别和项目的鉴定,《德国民事诉讼法》做出了不同的规定。
④同①。
①蒋尧明.注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建[J].会计研究,2009年第2期,第86-87页。
①杜志淳,霍宪丹主持编写.中国司法鉴定制度研究[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2002年,第153页。
转引自刘革新.构建中国的司法鉴定体制[D].博士学位论文.北京：中国政法大学,2006年,第54页。
刘革新.构建中国的司法鉴定体制[D].博士学位论文.北京：中国政法大学,2006年,第68页。
(奥)凯尔森.法与国家的一般理论[M].沈宗灵译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1996年,第173页。
①王俊峰、祝庭显.论民事诉讼中鉴定人的民事损害赔偿责任[J].河南大学学报(社会科学版),1999年第5期,第72页。
[1]卞建林译.美国联邦刑事诉讼规则和证据规则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1996.
[2]陈桂明,刘田玉.司法鉴定的性质与鉴定人的司法责任.证据学论坛[M](第四卷).北京：人民检察出版社,2002.
[3]杜志淳,霍宪丹.中国司法鉴定制度研究[M].北京：法制出版社,2002.
[4]德国贝克出版社.德意志联邦共和国民事诉讼法[M].谢怀拭译.北京：中国法制出版社,2001.
[5]方道茂.我国司法鉴定管理体制研究[D].武汉：华中科技大学博士论文,2006.
[6]宫万路.鉴定制度比较研究.证据学论坛[M](第一卷).北京：中国检察出版社,2000.
[7]古鸿.验资报告的真伪由谁鉴定[J].上海会计,2000,(6)
[8](日)谷口安平.程序的正义与诉讼[M].王亚新,刘荣军译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[9]龚晓玲.关于建立注册会计师过错责任鉴定制度的思考[J].会计之友,2003,(7)
[10]霍宪丹.关于司法鉴定工作若干问题的探讨[J].司法研究,2001,(2)
[11]蒋尧明.上市公司会计信息虚假陈述民事责任[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[12]蒋尧明.注册会计师民事责任若干疑难问题研究[J].审计研究,2004,(2)
[13]蒋尧明.注册会计师审计报告虚假陈述民事责任的回顾与总结[J].当代财经,2008,(10)
[14]蒋尧明.注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的构建[J].会计研究,2009,(2)
[15]蒋尧明,吉伟莉.关于构建注册会计师执业责任鉴定机制的思考[J].现代管理科学,2009,(12)
[16]蒋尧明,吉伟莉.注册会计师执业责任鉴定若干疑难问题研究[J].中央财经大学雪报,2010,(4)
[17]吉伟莉.注册会计师执业责任鉴定人五个问题分析[J].经济管理(新管理),2008,(12)
[18]吉伟莉.也谈审计理论中的“应有职业关注”概念[J].中国审计,2009,(9)
[19]金光正,邹明理.司法鉴定学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1995.
[20]金建华.检查会计鉴定学[M].北京：中国检查出版社,1999.
[21]金银姬,崔允铱.浅议法院司法会计鉴定证据[J].中国审计证据与方法,2001, (12)
[22]金彧昉,李若山.关于我国上市公司虚假会计信息法律责任鉴定分析[J].复旦大学学报,2003,(5)
[23](奥)凯尔森.法与国家的一般理论[M].沈宗灵译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1996.
[24](美)理查德·A·波斯纳.法律的经济分析[M].蒋兆康译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1997.
[25]李国光,贾纬.证券市场虚假陈述民事赔偿制度[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[26]李若山.审计案例——国外审计诉讼案例[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社,1998.
[27]李若山,周勤业.注册会计师法律责任理论与实务[M].北京：中国时代经济出版社,2002.
[28]李玉华,杨军生.司法鉴定的诉讼化[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2006.
[29]雷华.司法会计鉴定人出庭作证若干问题研究[J].中国司法鉴定,2003,(4)
[30]刘明辉.高级审计研究[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社,2009.
[31]刘燕.会计师民事责任研究——公众利益与职业利益的平衡[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2004.
[32]刘革新.构建中国的司法鉴定体制[D].北京：中国政法大学博士论文,2006.
[33](美)罗伯特·K·莫茨,(埃及)侯赛因·A·夏拉夫.审计理论结构[M].文硕译.北京：中国商业出版社,1990.
[34](英)马尔科姆·卢瑟福.经济学中的制度[M].陈建波,郁仲莉译.北京：中国社会科学出版社,1999.
[35]毛岩亮.民间审计责任研究[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社.1999.
[36](美)米尔顿·德·格林.美国民事诉讼程序概论[M].上海大学文学院法律系译.北京：法律出版社,1988.
[37](德)米夏埃尔·施蒂尔纳编.德国民事诉讼法学文萃[M].赵秀举译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[38](日)能见善久.论专家民事责任——其理论框架的建议.民商法论丛[M](第五卷).梁慧星译.北京：法律出版社,1997.
[39](美)尼古拉斯·麦考罗,斯蒂文·G·曼德姆.经济学与法律——从波斯纳到后现代主义.[M].吴晓露等译.北京：法律出版社,2005.
[40]庞建兵.我国司法会计的现状与发展[J].中国司法鉴定,2001,(2)
[41]浦周伟,蔡国芹.论我国司法鉴定人制度[J].中国司法鉴定,2007,(5)
[42](日)浦川道太郎.德国的专家责任.民商法论丛[M](第五卷).梁慧星译.北京：法律出版社,1997.
[43]钱弘道.经济分析法学[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[44]屈介民.专家民事责任论[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社,1998.
[45]沈达明.英美证据法[M].北京：中信出版社,1996.
[46]沈红,陆永伟.司法会计鉴定证据与诉讼证据的关系[J].中国司法鉴定,2003,(1)
[47]孙业群.司法鉴定制度改革研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2002.
[48]覃东.我国会计法律问题的经济学分析[D].上海：复旦大学博士论文,2002.
[49]王利明.惩罚性赔偿研究[J].民商法(人大复印资料),2000,(10)
[50]王景琦编译.法国民事诉讼程序中的鉴定人[J].人民检察,2000,(12)
[51]王俊峰,祝庭显.论民事诉讼中鉴定人的民事损害赔偿责任[J].河南大学学报(社会科学版),1999,(5)
[52]王亚新.诉讼变革中的民事诉讼[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2001.
[53]王卫国.过错责任原则：第三次勃兴[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000.
[54]王泽鉴.民法学说与判例研究(7)[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1998.
[55]伟仲国.司法会计与鉴定[M].大连：东北财经出版社,1987.
[56]文建秀.证券市场信息披露中注册会计师的法律责任[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[57]文硕.世界审计史[M].北京：中国审计出版社,1990.
[58]吴弘.中国证券市场发展的法律调控[M].北京：中国法律出版社,2001.
[59]谢盛纹.审计证据理论研究[M].成都：西南财经大学出版社.2007.
[60]谢荣.市场经济中的民间审计责任[M].上海：上海社会科学出版社,1998.
[61]邢颖.证券公开文件虚假陈述民事责任的构成要件.经济法论丛[M](第2卷)北京：法律出版社,2001.
[62]徐继军.专家证人研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[63]徐昕.英国民事诉讼与民事司法改革[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[64]宣伟华.虚假陈述民事赔偿与投资者权益保护[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[65]颜延.从注册会计师的注意义务看独立审计准则的法律地位[J].会计研究,2003,(6)
[66]于朝.司法会计学[M].太原：山西经济出版社,1995.
[67]曾世雄.损害赔偿法原理[M].台北：台北出版社,1996.
[68]张建军.审计理论中的合理保证概念[J].当代财经,1995,(12)
[69]张民安,龚赛红.专业人士所承担的过错侵权责任[J].法学评论,2002, (6)
[70]张蕊,谢盛纹.论注册会计师民事责任制度的建立与完善[J].审计研究,2002,(4)
[71]张蕊.注册会计师的民事责任及其抗辩[J].会计研究,2003,(1)
[72]张新宝.中国侵权行为法[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[73]赵保卿.注册会计师审计法律责任研究[J].审计研究,2002,(3)
[74]赵如兰,戴建宏.对司法会计几个问题的思考[J].财经科学,2001,(2)
[75]郑顺炎.证券市场不当行为的法律实证[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[76]郑朝晖.谁来鉴定审计失败[J].中国审计,2001,(4)
[77]周学峰.公司审计与专家责任[D].北京：中国政法大学博士论文,2004.
[78]周志诚.注册会计师法律责任——中国海峡两岸案例比较研究[M].上海：上海财经大学出版社,2001.
[79]中国注册会计师协会.中国注册会计师法律责任——案例与研究[M].沈阳：辽宁出版社,1998.
[80]朱剑平.东方电子案庭审激辩三大焦点[N].上海证券报,2006-9-9.
[81]Acemoglu, Daron and Gietzmann, Miles B. Auditor independence. Incomplete Contracts and the Role of Legal Liability[J]. The European Accounting Review,1997, Vol.6:355.
[82]AICPA. The Commission on Auditors'Responsibilities, Report, Conclusions, and Recommendations (Cohen Commission Report) [R]. New York:AICPA,1978.
[83]Barbara Black, Fraud on the Market:A Criticism of Dispensing with Reliance Requirements in Certain Open Market Transactions[J].62 N.C.L.Rev.435,1984.
[84]Barber, Griffin, and Lev, The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory and the Indicators of Common Stocks' Efficiency [J].19 Iowa J.Corp.L.285,1994.
[85]Bernard, Botosan, and Phillips, Challenges to the Efficient Market Hypothesis: Limits to the Applicability of Fraud-on-the-Market Theory [J].73 Neb.L.Rev.781,1994.
[86]Botina K Peterson&David R. Barnhill, Accountants as Expert Witness:A Primer on Meeting Daubert Challenges [J]. Journal of Forensic Accounting,2003, Vol.IV:105-112.
[87]Bowles & Jones, Professional Liability:an Economic Analysis[M]. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press,1989.
[88]Baxt, The Modern Company Auditor-A Nineteen-Century Watchdog[J]. Modern Law Review,1970,Vol.33:413.
[89]Carney, The Limits of the Fraud on the Market Doctrine [J].44 Business Law. 1989,Vol.44:1271-1277.
[90]Christopher J. Napier, Intersections of Law and Accountancy:Unlimited Auditor Liability in the United Kingdom[J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,1998,Vol. 23, No. I:105-128.
[91]Collier, Jesse Newton, New Opportunities and Challenges for Today's CPA in the Legal Arena[J]. Journal of Accountancy,1989, Vol.1:66.
[92]Cooper. B.J.& Barkoczy, M.L. Third Party Liability:The Auditor's Lament[J]. Managerial Auditing Journal,1994,Vol.9 (5):31.
[93]Cox, Hillman and Langevoort, Securities Regulation:Cases and Materials (second edition) [M].1998:746.
[94]Dicherson, R.W.V., Accountants and the Law of Negligence[M]. Toronto:Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants,1966.
[95]Dugdale, A.M.& Stanton, K.M., Professional Negligence[M].3rd edition, London: Butterworths,1998.
[96]Dwayne Cox, Title Company v. County Recorder:A Case Study in Open Records Litigation[J].The American Archivist,2004,Vol.67 (Spring/Summer):46-57.
[97]Godsell, D. Auditors'Legal Liability and the Expectation Gap[J]. Australia Accounting,1991, Vol.61.
[98]Green, D. Litigation Risk for Auditors and the Risk Society[J]. Critical Perspective Accounting.1999,Vol.10:339
[99]Hardwig, J. Epistemic Dependence [J]. Journal of Philosophy,1985,Vol.82:338.
[100]Hill, J. W. Winter. A call for papers:Auditor liability[J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,1994,Vol.13 (4):363-365.
[101]Jackson, Rupert M.& Powell, John L., Professional Negligence[M].4th edition, London:Sweet & Maxwell,1996.
[102]Kenneth W. Robinson, Accountants' Usefulness as Expert Witness Grows Complex[J].Journal of Accountancy (pre-1986). New York:May 1951.Vol.91:000005:686.
[103]Lawrence A. Gordon and Stephen E. Loeb, The Legal Liability of Independent Auditors[J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,1997, Vol.16:337.
[104]Levine, H.J.Morris, A.Curry, R.Sobel, et al. Careers to Count on[J]. U.S.News and World Report, Feb.18,2002.
[105]Liggio,C.D., The Expectation Gap:The Accountant's Waterloo[J]. Journal of Contemporary Business,1974,Vol.3.
[106]Macey, Miller, Mitchell and Netter, Lessons From Financial Economics: Materiality, Reliance, and Extending the Reach of Basic v.Levinson[J].77 Va.L.Rev.1017,1991.
[107]Marshall A. Geiger, K. Raghunandan, Dasaratha V. Rama, Auditor decision-making in different litigation environments:The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, audit reports and audit firm size[J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,2006,Vol.15:332-353.
[108]Max Lourie, Forensic Accounting[J].New York Certified Public Accountant (pre-1986). New York:Nov 1953.Vol.23, Iss.000011:696.
[109]Mess, Michael A., Accountants and the Common Law:Liability to Third Parties[J]. Notre Dame Law Review,1977,Vol.52:838.
[110]Michael J. Ferguson. Abdul Majid, To Sue or Not to Sue:An Experimental Study of Factors Affecting Hong Kong Liquidators Audit Litigation Decisions[J]. Journal of Business Ethics.2003,Vol.46:363-374.
[111]Mohamed E. Bayou, Alan Reinstein, A Systemic View of Fraud Explaining its Strategies, Anatomy and Process[J]. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,2001,Vol. 12:383-403.
[112]Nicholas L.Georgakopoulos, Frauds, Markets, and Fraud-on-the-Market:The Tortured Transition of Justifiable Reliance from Deceit to Securities Fraud[J].49 U.Miami L.Rev.671,1995.
[113]Olinsky, AlanD, Mangiameli, Paul M & Chen, Shaw K, Statistical support of forensic auditing[J]. Interfaces. Linthicum,1996, Vol.26, Iss 6.Nov/Dee:95.
[114]Poter,B. An Empirical Study of the Audit Expectation-Performance Gap[J]. Accounting and Business Research,1993,Vol.24,no.93:49-68.
[115]Randall E. LaSalle. The civil justice system and going concern audit reports: Comments on "Auditors'decision-making under going concern uncertainties in low litigation risk environments:Evidence from Hong Kong"[J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,2006,Vol.25:740-745.
[116]Regimes, and Big 4 Premiums:Theory and Cross-country Evidence[J]. Contemporary Accounting Research.2008.Vol.25 No.1.Spring:55-99.
[117]Rupert M. Jackson & John L. Powell. Professional negliance[M].4th edition. London:Sweet&Maxwell.1982.
[118]Sloane, Raymond T. Litigation Consulting-A Practitioner's Guide[J]. The CPA Journal,1990,Apr; 60,4. ABI/INFORM Global:16-25.
[119]Spellmire, Baliga, and Winiarski, Accounting, Auditing and Financial Malpractice[M]. Hracourt Brace&Company,1998.
[120]Stephen Fogg, Books received:Forensic accounting handbook[J]. Journal of Accountancy, NewYork:Aug1990. Vol.170,155.2:131.
[121]Susan Zhan Shu, Auditor resignations:clientele effects and legal liability[J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics,2000, Vol.29:173-205.
[122]Wardle, Peter and James, Doris, Professional Negligence:Has Hercules Given Judges More Discretion[J]. Int'l Comm. Litig. Feb.1998.
[123]Watson, S.M., The Application of "Common Sense":Liability of Auditors in New Zealand[J]. The Journal of Business Law, May.1999.
[124]Williams, Kathy, Safeguarding companies from computer/software fraud[J]. Management Accounting, Montvale:Feb.Vol.78, Iss 55.8.1997:18-27.
[125]Zeph Telpner, Miehael Mostek, Expert Witnessing in Forensic Accounting[M]. by CRC Press LLC, Boea Raton London New York Washington, D.C.2003.