法务会计鉴定采信机制研究
|
摘要
随着市场经济的迅速发展,经济活动日益活跃、经济交易日趋复杂,出现了大量财务欺诈与舞弊、虚假陈述等经济犯罪与经济纠纷。这些案件的审理与判决涉及大量的财务会计、审计专业知识,超出了法官的常识和判断能力,需要借助会计专业人士对涉案的特定财务会计事项进行检验、鉴别和判断,提供专家意见证据作为审理案件的依据。与此同时,为了适应司法改革中鉴定职能的独立化、鉴定机构的中立化和鉴定人资格的职业化,原先由公检法内部开展的司法会计鉴定将逐渐从司法职能中剥离出来,仅保留侦查机关因工作需要而进行的司法会计鉴定,会计鉴定将主要由社会中介机构来承担,成为会计师事务所(注册会计师)一项新兴的业务——法务会计鉴定。随着我国司法体制改革的进一步深入和完善,注册会计师应是法务会计鉴定的主力军,法务会计鉴定已成为会计师事务所一项重要的增值服务业务。
在鉴定机构与司法机关分离前,会计鉴定由法院指派或委托内部的司法会计鉴定机构进行,其所作出的鉴定意见当然地具有证据资格,鉴定意见不存在可采性问题,一般在庭审时直接被法官采信。但在鉴定机构与司法机关分离后,由独立的中介机构或人员(会计师事务所及注册会计师)所出具的鉴定意见是否被法官采纳,缺乏科学、合理的判断标准或规则,法官通常根据鉴定机构级别的高低、鉴定人资质、能力的强弱以及鉴定时间的先后来判断选择,往往级别高的鉴定机构比级别低的更可靠、能力强的鉴定人出具的鉴定意见比能力弱的更可信、重新鉴定的意见比原先的意见更优先等。
在理论上,研究法务会计鉴定的采信机制,可以丰富司法证据规则,完善证据的取证、举证、质证和认证规则,有助于完善法务会计鉴定制度,推动法务会计鉴定理论的发展。同时,也为其他类型司法鉴定(如知识产权司法鉴定、税务司法鉴定与资产评估司法鉴定等)的相关制度研究提供一个研究范例,丰富人文社科类鉴定的相关理论和制度。在实践上,研究法务会计鉴定的采信机制,可以为法官采纳鉴定意见提供切实有效的指导,从而实现公正裁判,有效提高会计鉴定的科学性和公信力；从广义的角度研究法务会计鉴定的采信机制,有助于提高鉴定意见的采信度,增强社会对法务会计鉴定工作的认同度,更好地体现诉讼的实体公正和程序公正的价值理念。
论文从法务会计鉴定的专家证据性质入手,结合证据的属性,分析法务会计鉴定的证据能力和证明力。接下来,以法务会计鉴定采信的机理为基础,研究法务会计鉴定采信机制的内容,将法务会计鉴定的采信作为一个整体系统,分析影响系统功能的各个要素。针对法务会计鉴定采信机制的各要素,结合所指向的证据属性,分别研究其法理、具体内容与制度安排。主要包括法务会计鉴定意见的可采性审查、法务会计鉴定的质证和法务会计鉴定的采纳。
在研究方法上,以定性分析法为主,比较研究法和案例分析法为辅。论文以会计、审计理论为出发点,以法学方法论、社会学分工理论和人类认知理论为支撑点,然后从比较法的视野分析两大法系专家证人制度和鉴定人制度的现状、利弊和发展趋势,在剖析法务会计鉴定采信的运作机理的基础上,研究设计法务会计鉴定的采信机制。本文的案例研究以注册会计师从事会计鉴定的案件为主,也包含国外典型的法务会计专家证人案例。案例主要来源于“北大法意”法律实证研究数据支持服务系统。
本文的研究目的表现在以下三个方面：
(1)建立法务会计鉴定的可采性规则,为法官正确判断法务会计鉴定意见的证据能力提供指导,防止不适格的法务会计鉴定意见进入法庭,扰乱法官对财务会计争议问题的认定,同时这一规则也可以对法官取舍证据加以制衡,防止法官恣意裁量。
(2)为当事人及其律师合理质疑法务会计鉴定意见的证据能力与证明力提供正确思路和方向指引,切实提高质证的效率与效果。
(3)分析影响事实裁判者(法官或陪审团)采纳法务会计鉴定意见的主要因素,帮助法务会计鉴定人提高专家意见的采信度,引导事实裁判者正确认定事实,裁决诉讼。
本文的主要研究结论如下：
(1)诉讼主体的不同,是确定采信机制内容的主要依据；诉讼程序的不同,是确定采信机制内容的重要依据。不同诉讼主体的职能不同,在不同诉讼程序阶段,对采信内容的侧重点不同；即使同一主体,对采信内容的要求和力度也不同。法务会计鉴定采信的机理是证据能力与证明力的统一,法务会计鉴定采信的本质是对证据证据能力和证明力的认证。
(2)法务会计鉴定的采信是一个由法官对鉴定意见可采性的审查、双方当事人对鉴定意见质证和事实裁判者对鉴定意见的采纳组成的对立统一的过程。三个方面的内容紧密相连,相互影响、相互作用。法务会计鉴定采信机制是这一工作系统各要素相互作用的过程、方式和原理。法务会计鉴定的可采性和采纳紧密相联,可采性是采纳的前提,是整个采信机制的基础,质证是采信机制的核心内容,采纳是采信机制的关键环节。三者在主体、客体和标准等方面的差异是决定法务会计鉴定采信机制内容的主要因素。
(3)为了确保法务会计鉴定意见能够作为证据使用,具有可采性,法务会计鉴定意见应遵循以下可采性规则：法务会计鉴定具有必要性；从事法务会计鉴定的人员具备司法部认可的专家证人资格,保持良好的职业道德,未因过错等原因受到公开的警告、批评或谴责；法务会计鉴定的取证过程合法,操作程序规范,依据的财务会计资料真实、合法；依据的法律、法规、制度与现行的法律、法规、制度和公认的会计准则、惯例保持一致,运用的会计审计技术和方法与会计学术界使用的或会计权威出版物记载的原理、方法保持一致；法务会计鉴定的结果符合一定的形式要件。
(4)当事人及其律师应从证据能力和证明力两方面质证法务会计鉴定意见,但并不是严格按照先证据能力后证明力的顺序,而是交叉进行的。当事人及其律师应从以下方面质疑法务会计鉴定意见的证据能力：法务会计鉴定人的选任是否合法、品格是否良好、能力是否适格；法务会计鉴定人与委托人之间是否存在利害关系、法务会计鉴定的收费是否合理；作为法务会计鉴定对象的财务会计资料来源是否真实、合法。当事人及其律师应从以下方面质疑法务会计鉴定意见的证明力：法务会计鉴定推理是否严密、论证是否充分；法务会计鉴定过程是否规范；法务会计鉴定意见是否可靠。
(5)法官的思维规则以法律真实为认识基础、以司法公正为价值追求；法官的思维方式具有逻辑性和程序性,两者直接决定法务会计鉴定意见的采纳。法官对法务会计鉴定的采纳实质上是对法务会计鉴定意见证明力的判断,本质上是法官自由心证的过程,这一过程受经验法则和逻辑规则的约束,遵循法官特有的思维方式和思维规则。
(6)法官在当事人及其律师质证法务会计鉴定意见的基础上,对法务会计鉴定意见的证明力自由裁量。影响法官采纳法务会计鉴定意见的主要因素有：专家证言、所依赖的财务会计资料、专家的专业知识或经验三者之间是否具有内在的逻辑关系；在做出法务会计鉴定意见过程中所使用的会计审计理论、技术与方法是否恰当；法务会计鉴定意见与其他证据是否相辅相成,存在合理的逻辑关系；质证对法官判断法务会计鉴定意见证明力的影响；法官是否与法务会计鉴定人之间存在长期的合作关系。
(7)陪审员采纳证据的模式是故事重构。陪审员对证据的采纳不单纯取决于在审判中获得的信息,对故事形成所必要的其他相关信息往往起到决定性的作用。影响陪审员采纳法务会计鉴定的主要因素有：法务会计鉴定人的可信度,具体包括法务会计鉴定人的行为举止、法务会计鉴定人的语言表达、法务会计鉴定人的利益与动机；法务会计鉴定意见的可信性,具体包括法务会计鉴定意见的论证是否充分、法务会计鉴定意见的逻辑推理是否严密、法务会计鉴定意见的表述是否清晰。
(8)通过对无可采信、未采信和采信三个典型案例的分析,本文认为,当前我国法务会计鉴定的采信普遍存在以下突出问题：法务会计鉴定缺乏程序理性,表现为法务会计鉴定委托不合法或无必要；作为法务会计鉴定对象的财务会计资料不可靠或不完整；法务会计鉴定人很少出庭作证接受质询,不利于专家意见的采信。这些问题的解决有待于法务会计鉴定采信机制的有效实施和相关保障措施和制度的建立。
本文的创新体现在以下三个方面：
(1)从法务会计鉴定采信的运作机理入手,系统地构建了广义的法务会计鉴定的采信机制。首次提出法务会计鉴定的采信是一项系统工程,是由相互作用和相互依赖的基于不同目的、不同功能的三类诉讼主体对专家证据的评判而组成的有机整体。法务会计鉴定采信机制是一个体现诉讼实体公正和程序公正价值理念的广义采信系统工程。法务会计鉴定的可采性和采纳紧密相联,可采性是采纳的前提,是整个采信机制的基础,质证是采信机制的核心内容,采纳是采信机制的关键环节。
(2)借鉴英美国家专家证据的可采性规则,结合法务会计鉴定的性质和特征,构建了法务会计鉴定意见的可采性规则,为法官正确判断法务会计鉴定意见的证据能力提供了指引和帮助。
(3)对证据的采信和事实的认定由事实裁判者自由裁量,自由心证的论证过程缺乏透明度,理论上,采信的内心过程成为研究盲点。本文在剖析法官思维方式与规则和分析陪审员采纳证据模式的基础上,分别得出影响法官和陪审员采纳法务会计鉴定专家意见的主要因素,这些因素有助于法务会计鉴定人提高专家意见的采信度,引导事实裁判者正确认定事实,裁决诉讼。
With the rapid development of market economy, the economic activities become active increasingly, the economic transactions become more and more complex, appeare a large number of financial fraud, false statements and other economic crime and disputes. The trail and judgment of these cases involve a large number of financial accounting and auditing expertise, all of thses are beyond the common sense and ability of judge. It needs accounting professionals to inspect, identificate and judge the specific financial and accounting involved, then issue the expert opinion evidence serve as the trial case basis. At the same time, in order to meet the independence of the functions of identification, the neutral of identification institutions and the professional of identification qualification in judicial reform, judicial accounting identification undertake by the organization of public security, procuratorial and court previously be spun off gradually from the judicial functions. Judicial accounting identification only retains in investigation organs because of its need of work. Accounting identification be borne by the social intermediary organizations mainly and will become the new business of certified public accountants(CPA)--forensic accounting identification. With the further development and perfection of our judicial system reform the CPA is the main force of forensic accounting identification and forensic accounting identification will become public accounting firm an important value-added services business.
Before the identification institutions separate from the judicial organization,accounting identification appointed or consigned by judicial accounting identificationg of the court internal, its has qualifications of course, admissibility of expert opinion there is no problem. Generally in the trial, it direct adopts by the judge. However, after the identification institutions separate from the judicial organization, there are lack of scientific and rational criteria or rules of identification opinion issued by the independent agency or personnel (accounting firms and certified public accountants). Judges usually bases on hight and low of identification institutions, expert qualifications, ability and sequencing order to choice the conclusion, that is, the high level of accreditation institutions are more reliable than the lower level, the stronger ability institutions are more credible than the lower, the opinion of re-identification are priority to the original and so on.
In theory, research on adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification can enrich the judicial rules of evidence, improve adduce, cross examination and certification rules of evidence, help to perfect the forensic accounting identification system,and promote development the theory of forensic accounting identification. At the same time, It provides study examples for relative system of other types judicial identification (such as intellectual property judicial identification, tax judicial identification forensic and judicial identification of assets evaluation, etc.) and enriches theory and system of humanities and social science identification. In practice, research on adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification can provide effective guidance of whether to adopt the opinion of forensic accounting identification. So as to achieve a just judge and improve the scientific and credibility of judicial identification effectively.Research on adopting mechanism of forensic accountants identification in broad perspective can improve the reliability of expert opinion, strengthen degree of social recognition of forensic accounting identification, and embody the value concept of entity and procedural justice and fairness.
The paper analyses the evidence ability and proof capability of forensic accounting identification bases on the nature of expert evidence of forensic accounting identification, combines the properties of the evidence. Next, the paper researches the contents of adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification bases on adopting mechanism and theory of forensic accounting identification. Then regards the adopting of forensic accounting identification as a whole system, analyses the various elements of system function. According to the elements of adopting mechanism and theory of forensic accounting identification, combins with the evidence property which pointed to, researches the jurisprudence, specific contents and system arrangements respectively. It includs the admissibility censor of opinion of forensic accounting identification, cross-examination of forensic accounting identification and adopting of forensic accounting identification.
In research methods, the paper uses qualitative analysis mainly and uses comparative analysis and case studies assistantly. The paper serves accounting and auditing theory as the starting point, legal methodology, sociological division of labor theory and the theory of human cognition as strong point, and then from the perspective of comparative law, analyses the present situation, advantages and disadvantages and development trend of expert witness and judicial identificater system of two legal system. Then designs the adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification bases on analysis of operation mechanism and theory. The case study of this paper bases on the case of accounting identifications carry out by certified public accountant mainly, also include the typical foreign forensic accounting expert witness cases. The cases come mainly from Data Support System of Legal Empirical Research of "peking university Lawyeee".
The purpose of this paper in the following three aspects:
(1) Establishment of the admissibility rules of forensic accountants identification can provided guidence for the judges to determine evidence ability of opinion of forensic accounting identification rightly, and avoid unqualified opinion of forensic accounting identification go into the court and disrupt the judges on the disputed financial accounting issues, while the rules also balance the judge to choose evidence, and prevent the arbitrary discretion of judges.
(2) The paper provides accurate thoughts and direction guidence for the parties and their lawyers to challenge the evidence ability and proof capability of forensic accounting identification, and improves the efficiency and effectiveness of cross-examination effectively.
(3) Analysis of the main factors which influences the facts judge (judge or jury) adopt expert opinion, which can help forensic accounting identificater to improve the reliability of expert opinions, and guide the facts judge to assert facts and adjudicate lawsuit correctly.
The main conclusions of the paper are as follows:
(1)The difference of litigation subject is main foundation of determining the contents of adopting mechanism, and the difference of litigation proceedings is important foundation of determining the contents of adopting mechanism. The different litigation subject have different functions. The contents of adoptin take a different focus at different stages of litigation proceedings. Even if the same subject, the requirements and strength of contents of adopting are also different. The adopting mechanism and theory of forensic accounting identification is the unification of evidence ability and proof capability. The nature of adopting of forensic accounting identification is attestation of evidence ability and proof capability.
(2) The adopting of forensic accounting identification is an oxymoron process of the admissibility censor of opinion of forensic accounting identification, cross-examination of forensic accounting identification and adopting of forensic accounting identification.The Three aspects are linked closely, influenced and interacted each other. The adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification are interactive processes, methods and principles of elements of the work systems.The admissibility of forensic accounting is related to adopting closely. The admisssibility is the premise of adopting,and is the basis of the whole adopting mechanism. The cross-examination is core content of the adopting mechanism, and adopting is the key piont of adopting mechanism.The difference in the subject, object and standards of three facts are the main factors which determines the content of adopting mechanism of forensic accounting.
(3) In order to ensure opinion of forensic accounting identification can be used as evidence, and be admissibility, expert opinions of forensic accounting should obey the rules of admissibility as follows:The necessity of forensic accounting identification. Forensic accounting identificater have the qualifications of expert witness which recognized by the Ministry of Justice, and have good work ethic, and have not subject to warning, criticism or condemnation publicly because of errors in work. The process of collect evidence of forensic accounting identification is legitimate, operational procedure is normative, financial and accounting information based on is true and legitimate. The laws, rules and systems depend on is keep consistant with and existing laws, rules, systems and generally accepted accounting principles and practices. The accounting and auditing techniques and methods which used is consistent with the principles and methods which accounting academic circles used or authority publications recorded. The results of forensic accounting identification accord with formal requirements.
(4) Ability of The parties and their lawyers should cross-examinate both evidence ability and proof capability of forensic accounting expert opinion. However, it does not accord to the order of evidence ability first and proof capability second, also carries out crossly. The parties and their lawyers should question the evidence ability of expert opinions as follows:Whethe the selection of forensic accounting expert is legality and integrity is good, and capability is suitable. Whethe forensic accounting expert is interest with their client, and is interest, and fees of forensic accounting identification are reasonable. As the object of forensic accountants identification financial accounting information is true and legal. The parties and their lawyers should question the proof capability of expert opinions as follows:Whethe the reason of forensic accounting identification is tight, the demonstration is adequacy. Whether the process of forensic accounting identification is normative. Whether forensic accounting expert opinion is reliable.
(5) Legal true is acquaintance basis of rules thought of judge, and judicial justice is value pursue. The way of judge thinking mode had logical and procedural, which determine the forensic accounting expert opinion of the adoption directly. The adoption of forensic accounting identification is to judge the proof capability of forensic accounting identification, which is a process of free heart-proof essentially. This process is affected by experience regulations and obeys the unique thinking mode and thinking rules of judges.
(6) The parties and their lawyers discreted the proof capability of expert opinion freely, which base on cross-examine the expert opinion of forensic accounting identification. The major factors which influence the judge to adopt expert opinion as follows. Expert testimony, financial and accounting information, expert knowledge or experience had inherent logic relations. The accounting and auditing theories, techniques and methods used in forensic accounting identification are appropriate. The opinion of forensic accounting identification and other evidence are complementary, and their have reasonable and logical relations. Cross-examination influences the proof capability of forensic accounting expert opinion. Whether judge and forensic accounting expert have long-term partnership.
(7) The model of adopting the evidence of jury is story reconstruction. The adopting the evidence of jury do not only simply dependent on information obtained in the trial, but also the other relevant information, which is relative and necessary to shape the story, and their play a decisive role. The major factors which influenced the jury to adopt expert opinion as follows. The credibility of forensic accounting expert, including the behavior of forensic accounting expert, the language of forensic accounting expert, the interests and motivation of forensic accounting expert. The credibility of forensic accounting expert opinion, including whethe the argument of forensic accounting expert opinion is adequacy, whethe the logical reasoning of forensic accounting expert opinion is strict, whethe the statement of forensic accounting expert opinion is clear.
(8) By no-admissibility, no-adoptability and adoptability three typical cases, this paper believes that Chinese current adopting of forensic accounting identification exite outstanding problems as follows. Forensic accounting identifications lack of procedural rationality, which embody that the commission is illegal and unnecessary. The financial accounting information which served as the object of forensic accounting identification is unreliable and incomplete. Forensic accounting experts do not testify in court and accepte query. The solution of these problems rely on putting the adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification into effect and building up relative guarantee measures and systems.
The innovation of this paper are as following three areas.
(1)The paper built up the general adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification bases on operation mechanism and theory of forensic accounting identification. The paper points out that adopting of forensic accounting identification is a systematic project firstly. It is an organic whole made up of three judicail subjects of different purposes and different functions which evaluate and judge expert evidence. The adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification is a general systematic project which embody the value concept of entity and procedural justice and fairness. The admisssibility is the premise of adopting,and is the basis of the whole adopting mechanism. The cross-examination is core content of the adopting mechanism, and adopting is the key piont of adopting mechanism.
(2) The paper references English and American admissibility rules of expert evidence and combines with the nature and characteristics of forensic accountants identification, then builds up the admissibility rules of opinion of forensic accounting identification, which provide guidance and help for judge to evaluate the evidence ability of expert opinion of forensic accounting identification.
(3) The Adoption evidence and asseting facts which sentenced by judge freely. However, demonstration procedures of free heart-proof lack of transparency, in theory, the inner process of adopting becmes blind point of research. This paper finds the main factors which influence judge and jury to adopt expert opinion of forensic accounting identification respectively based on disserting of thinking mode and rules of judge and analysing adopting model of jury. These factors contribute to improve degree of adopting forensic accounting identification expert opinion, guide the judges of fact to asset the facts and sentence the lawsuit.
在鉴定机构与司法机关分离前,会计鉴定由法院指派或委托内部的司法会计鉴定机构进行,其所作出的鉴定意见当然地具有证据资格,鉴定意见不存在可采性问题,一般在庭审时直接被法官采信。但在鉴定机构与司法机关分离后,由独立的中介机构或人员(会计师事务所及注册会计师)所出具的鉴定意见是否被法官采纳,缺乏科学、合理的判断标准或规则,法官通常根据鉴定机构级别的高低、鉴定人资质、能力的强弱以及鉴定时间的先后来判断选择,往往级别高的鉴定机构比级别低的更可靠、能力强的鉴定人出具的鉴定意见比能力弱的更可信、重新鉴定的意见比原先的意见更优先等。
在理论上,研究法务会计鉴定的采信机制,可以丰富司法证据规则,完善证据的取证、举证、质证和认证规则,有助于完善法务会计鉴定制度,推动法务会计鉴定理论的发展。同时,也为其他类型司法鉴定(如知识产权司法鉴定、税务司法鉴定与资产评估司法鉴定等)的相关制度研究提供一个研究范例,丰富人文社科类鉴定的相关理论和制度。在实践上,研究法务会计鉴定的采信机制,可以为法官采纳鉴定意见提供切实有效的指导,从而实现公正裁判,有效提高会计鉴定的科学性和公信力；从广义的角度研究法务会计鉴定的采信机制,有助于提高鉴定意见的采信度,增强社会对法务会计鉴定工作的认同度,更好地体现诉讼的实体公正和程序公正的价值理念。
论文从法务会计鉴定的专家证据性质入手,结合证据的属性,分析法务会计鉴定的证据能力和证明力。接下来,以法务会计鉴定采信的机理为基础,研究法务会计鉴定采信机制的内容,将法务会计鉴定的采信作为一个整体系统,分析影响系统功能的各个要素。针对法务会计鉴定采信机制的各要素,结合所指向的证据属性,分别研究其法理、具体内容与制度安排。主要包括法务会计鉴定意见的可采性审查、法务会计鉴定的质证和法务会计鉴定的采纳。
在研究方法上,以定性分析法为主,比较研究法和案例分析法为辅。论文以会计、审计理论为出发点,以法学方法论、社会学分工理论和人类认知理论为支撑点,然后从比较法的视野分析两大法系专家证人制度和鉴定人制度的现状、利弊和发展趋势,在剖析法务会计鉴定采信的运作机理的基础上,研究设计法务会计鉴定的采信机制。本文的案例研究以注册会计师从事会计鉴定的案件为主,也包含国外典型的法务会计专家证人案例。案例主要来源于“北大法意”法律实证研究数据支持服务系统。
本文的研究目的表现在以下三个方面：
(1)建立法务会计鉴定的可采性规则,为法官正确判断法务会计鉴定意见的证据能力提供指导,防止不适格的法务会计鉴定意见进入法庭,扰乱法官对财务会计争议问题的认定,同时这一规则也可以对法官取舍证据加以制衡,防止法官恣意裁量。
(2)为当事人及其律师合理质疑法务会计鉴定意见的证据能力与证明力提供正确思路和方向指引,切实提高质证的效率与效果。
(3)分析影响事实裁判者(法官或陪审团)采纳法务会计鉴定意见的主要因素,帮助法务会计鉴定人提高专家意见的采信度,引导事实裁判者正确认定事实,裁决诉讼。
本文的主要研究结论如下：
(1)诉讼主体的不同,是确定采信机制内容的主要依据；诉讼程序的不同,是确定采信机制内容的重要依据。不同诉讼主体的职能不同,在不同诉讼程序阶段,对采信内容的侧重点不同；即使同一主体,对采信内容的要求和力度也不同。法务会计鉴定采信的机理是证据能力与证明力的统一,法务会计鉴定采信的本质是对证据证据能力和证明力的认证。
(2)法务会计鉴定的采信是一个由法官对鉴定意见可采性的审查、双方当事人对鉴定意见质证和事实裁判者对鉴定意见的采纳组成的对立统一的过程。三个方面的内容紧密相连,相互影响、相互作用。法务会计鉴定采信机制是这一工作系统各要素相互作用的过程、方式和原理。法务会计鉴定的可采性和采纳紧密相联,可采性是采纳的前提,是整个采信机制的基础,质证是采信机制的核心内容,采纳是采信机制的关键环节。三者在主体、客体和标准等方面的差异是决定法务会计鉴定采信机制内容的主要因素。
(3)为了确保法务会计鉴定意见能够作为证据使用,具有可采性,法务会计鉴定意见应遵循以下可采性规则：法务会计鉴定具有必要性；从事法务会计鉴定的人员具备司法部认可的专家证人资格,保持良好的职业道德,未因过错等原因受到公开的警告、批评或谴责；法务会计鉴定的取证过程合法,操作程序规范,依据的财务会计资料真实、合法；依据的法律、法规、制度与现行的法律、法规、制度和公认的会计准则、惯例保持一致,运用的会计审计技术和方法与会计学术界使用的或会计权威出版物记载的原理、方法保持一致；法务会计鉴定的结果符合一定的形式要件。
(4)当事人及其律师应从证据能力和证明力两方面质证法务会计鉴定意见,但并不是严格按照先证据能力后证明力的顺序,而是交叉进行的。当事人及其律师应从以下方面质疑法务会计鉴定意见的证据能力：法务会计鉴定人的选任是否合法、品格是否良好、能力是否适格；法务会计鉴定人与委托人之间是否存在利害关系、法务会计鉴定的收费是否合理；作为法务会计鉴定对象的财务会计资料来源是否真实、合法。当事人及其律师应从以下方面质疑法务会计鉴定意见的证明力：法务会计鉴定推理是否严密、论证是否充分；法务会计鉴定过程是否规范；法务会计鉴定意见是否可靠。
(5)法官的思维规则以法律真实为认识基础、以司法公正为价值追求；法官的思维方式具有逻辑性和程序性,两者直接决定法务会计鉴定意见的采纳。法官对法务会计鉴定的采纳实质上是对法务会计鉴定意见证明力的判断,本质上是法官自由心证的过程,这一过程受经验法则和逻辑规则的约束,遵循法官特有的思维方式和思维规则。
(6)法官在当事人及其律师质证法务会计鉴定意见的基础上,对法务会计鉴定意见的证明力自由裁量。影响法官采纳法务会计鉴定意见的主要因素有：专家证言、所依赖的财务会计资料、专家的专业知识或经验三者之间是否具有内在的逻辑关系；在做出法务会计鉴定意见过程中所使用的会计审计理论、技术与方法是否恰当；法务会计鉴定意见与其他证据是否相辅相成,存在合理的逻辑关系；质证对法官判断法务会计鉴定意见证明力的影响；法官是否与法务会计鉴定人之间存在长期的合作关系。
(7)陪审员采纳证据的模式是故事重构。陪审员对证据的采纳不单纯取决于在审判中获得的信息,对故事形成所必要的其他相关信息往往起到决定性的作用。影响陪审员采纳法务会计鉴定的主要因素有：法务会计鉴定人的可信度,具体包括法务会计鉴定人的行为举止、法务会计鉴定人的语言表达、法务会计鉴定人的利益与动机；法务会计鉴定意见的可信性,具体包括法务会计鉴定意见的论证是否充分、法务会计鉴定意见的逻辑推理是否严密、法务会计鉴定意见的表述是否清晰。
(8)通过对无可采信、未采信和采信三个典型案例的分析,本文认为,当前我国法务会计鉴定的采信普遍存在以下突出问题：法务会计鉴定缺乏程序理性,表现为法务会计鉴定委托不合法或无必要；作为法务会计鉴定对象的财务会计资料不可靠或不完整；法务会计鉴定人很少出庭作证接受质询,不利于专家意见的采信。这些问题的解决有待于法务会计鉴定采信机制的有效实施和相关保障措施和制度的建立。
本文的创新体现在以下三个方面：
(1)从法务会计鉴定采信的运作机理入手,系统地构建了广义的法务会计鉴定的采信机制。首次提出法务会计鉴定的采信是一项系统工程,是由相互作用和相互依赖的基于不同目的、不同功能的三类诉讼主体对专家证据的评判而组成的有机整体。法务会计鉴定采信机制是一个体现诉讼实体公正和程序公正价值理念的广义采信系统工程。法务会计鉴定的可采性和采纳紧密相联,可采性是采纳的前提,是整个采信机制的基础,质证是采信机制的核心内容,采纳是采信机制的关键环节。
(2)借鉴英美国家专家证据的可采性规则,结合法务会计鉴定的性质和特征,构建了法务会计鉴定意见的可采性规则,为法官正确判断法务会计鉴定意见的证据能力提供了指引和帮助。
(3)对证据的采信和事实的认定由事实裁判者自由裁量,自由心证的论证过程缺乏透明度,理论上,采信的内心过程成为研究盲点。本文在剖析法官思维方式与规则和分析陪审员采纳证据模式的基础上,分别得出影响法官和陪审员采纳法务会计鉴定专家意见的主要因素,这些因素有助于法务会计鉴定人提高专家意见的采信度,引导事实裁判者正确认定事实,裁决诉讼。
With the rapid development of market economy, the economic activities become active increasingly, the economic transactions become more and more complex, appeare a large number of financial fraud, false statements and other economic crime and disputes. The trail and judgment of these cases involve a large number of financial accounting and auditing expertise, all of thses are beyond the common sense and ability of judge. It needs accounting professionals to inspect, identificate and judge the specific financial and accounting involved, then issue the expert opinion evidence serve as the trial case basis. At the same time, in order to meet the independence of the functions of identification, the neutral of identification institutions and the professional of identification qualification in judicial reform, judicial accounting identification undertake by the organization of public security, procuratorial and court previously be spun off gradually from the judicial functions. Judicial accounting identification only retains in investigation organs because of its need of work. Accounting identification be borne by the social intermediary organizations mainly and will become the new business of certified public accountants(CPA)--forensic accounting identification. With the further development and perfection of our judicial system reform the CPA is the main force of forensic accounting identification and forensic accounting identification will become public accounting firm an important value-added services business.
Before the identification institutions separate from the judicial organization,accounting identification appointed or consigned by judicial accounting identificationg of the court internal, its has qualifications of course, admissibility of expert opinion there is no problem. Generally in the trial, it direct adopts by the judge. However, after the identification institutions separate from the judicial organization, there are lack of scientific and rational criteria or rules of identification opinion issued by the independent agency or personnel (accounting firms and certified public accountants). Judges usually bases on hight and low of identification institutions, expert qualifications, ability and sequencing order to choice the conclusion, that is, the high level of accreditation institutions are more reliable than the lower level, the stronger ability institutions are more credible than the lower, the opinion of re-identification are priority to the original and so on.
In theory, research on adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification can enrich the judicial rules of evidence, improve adduce, cross examination and certification rules of evidence, help to perfect the forensic accounting identification system,and promote development the theory of forensic accounting identification. At the same time, It provides study examples for relative system of other types judicial identification (such as intellectual property judicial identification, tax judicial identification forensic and judicial identification of assets evaluation, etc.) and enriches theory and system of humanities and social science identification. In practice, research on adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification can provide effective guidance of whether to adopt the opinion of forensic accounting identification. So as to achieve a just judge and improve the scientific and credibility of judicial identification effectively.Research on adopting mechanism of forensic accountants identification in broad perspective can improve the reliability of expert opinion, strengthen degree of social recognition of forensic accounting identification, and embody the value concept of entity and procedural justice and fairness.
The paper analyses the evidence ability and proof capability of forensic accounting identification bases on the nature of expert evidence of forensic accounting identification, combines the properties of the evidence. Next, the paper researches the contents of adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification bases on adopting mechanism and theory of forensic accounting identification. Then regards the adopting of forensic accounting identification as a whole system, analyses the various elements of system function. According to the elements of adopting mechanism and theory of forensic accounting identification, combins with the evidence property which pointed to, researches the jurisprudence, specific contents and system arrangements respectively. It includs the admissibility censor of opinion of forensic accounting identification, cross-examination of forensic accounting identification and adopting of forensic accounting identification.
In research methods, the paper uses qualitative analysis mainly and uses comparative analysis and case studies assistantly. The paper serves accounting and auditing theory as the starting point, legal methodology, sociological division of labor theory and the theory of human cognition as strong point, and then from the perspective of comparative law, analyses the present situation, advantages and disadvantages and development trend of expert witness and judicial identificater system of two legal system. Then designs the adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification bases on analysis of operation mechanism and theory. The case study of this paper bases on the case of accounting identifications carry out by certified public accountant mainly, also include the typical foreign forensic accounting expert witness cases. The cases come mainly from Data Support System of Legal Empirical Research of "peking university Lawyeee".
The purpose of this paper in the following three aspects:
(1) Establishment of the admissibility rules of forensic accountants identification can provided guidence for the judges to determine evidence ability of opinion of forensic accounting identification rightly, and avoid unqualified opinion of forensic accounting identification go into the court and disrupt the judges on the disputed financial accounting issues, while the rules also balance the judge to choose evidence, and prevent the arbitrary discretion of judges.
(2) The paper provides accurate thoughts and direction guidence for the parties and their lawyers to challenge the evidence ability and proof capability of forensic accounting identification, and improves the efficiency and effectiveness of cross-examination effectively.
(3) Analysis of the main factors which influences the facts judge (judge or jury) adopt expert opinion, which can help forensic accounting identificater to improve the reliability of expert opinions, and guide the facts judge to assert facts and adjudicate lawsuit correctly.
The main conclusions of the paper are as follows:
(1)The difference of litigation subject is main foundation of determining the contents of adopting mechanism, and the difference of litigation proceedings is important foundation of determining the contents of adopting mechanism. The different litigation subject have different functions. The contents of adoptin take a different focus at different stages of litigation proceedings. Even if the same subject, the requirements and strength of contents of adopting are also different. The adopting mechanism and theory of forensic accounting identification is the unification of evidence ability and proof capability. The nature of adopting of forensic accounting identification is attestation of evidence ability and proof capability.
(2) The adopting of forensic accounting identification is an oxymoron process of the admissibility censor of opinion of forensic accounting identification, cross-examination of forensic accounting identification and adopting of forensic accounting identification.The Three aspects are linked closely, influenced and interacted each other. The adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification are interactive processes, methods and principles of elements of the work systems.The admissibility of forensic accounting is related to adopting closely. The admisssibility is the premise of adopting,and is the basis of the whole adopting mechanism. The cross-examination is core content of the adopting mechanism, and adopting is the key piont of adopting mechanism.The difference in the subject, object and standards of three facts are the main factors which determines the content of adopting mechanism of forensic accounting.
(3) In order to ensure opinion of forensic accounting identification can be used as evidence, and be admissibility, expert opinions of forensic accounting should obey the rules of admissibility as follows:The necessity of forensic accounting identification. Forensic accounting identificater have the qualifications of expert witness which recognized by the Ministry of Justice, and have good work ethic, and have not subject to warning, criticism or condemnation publicly because of errors in work. The process of collect evidence of forensic accounting identification is legitimate, operational procedure is normative, financial and accounting information based on is true and legitimate. The laws, rules and systems depend on is keep consistant with and existing laws, rules, systems and generally accepted accounting principles and practices. The accounting and auditing techniques and methods which used is consistent with the principles and methods which accounting academic circles used or authority publications recorded. The results of forensic accounting identification accord with formal requirements.
(4) Ability of The parties and their lawyers should cross-examinate both evidence ability and proof capability of forensic accounting expert opinion. However, it does not accord to the order of evidence ability first and proof capability second, also carries out crossly. The parties and their lawyers should question the evidence ability of expert opinions as follows:Whethe the selection of forensic accounting expert is legality and integrity is good, and capability is suitable. Whethe forensic accounting expert is interest with their client, and is interest, and fees of forensic accounting identification are reasonable. As the object of forensic accountants identification financial accounting information is true and legal. The parties and their lawyers should question the proof capability of expert opinions as follows:Whethe the reason of forensic accounting identification is tight, the demonstration is adequacy. Whether the process of forensic accounting identification is normative. Whether forensic accounting expert opinion is reliable.
(5) Legal true is acquaintance basis of rules thought of judge, and judicial justice is value pursue. The way of judge thinking mode had logical and procedural, which determine the forensic accounting expert opinion of the adoption directly. The adoption of forensic accounting identification is to judge the proof capability of forensic accounting identification, which is a process of free heart-proof essentially. This process is affected by experience regulations and obeys the unique thinking mode and thinking rules of judges.
(6) The parties and their lawyers discreted the proof capability of expert opinion freely, which base on cross-examine the expert opinion of forensic accounting identification. The major factors which influence the judge to adopt expert opinion as follows. Expert testimony, financial and accounting information, expert knowledge or experience had inherent logic relations. The accounting and auditing theories, techniques and methods used in forensic accounting identification are appropriate. The opinion of forensic accounting identification and other evidence are complementary, and their have reasonable and logical relations. Cross-examination influences the proof capability of forensic accounting expert opinion. Whether judge and forensic accounting expert have long-term partnership.
(7) The model of adopting the evidence of jury is story reconstruction. The adopting the evidence of jury do not only simply dependent on information obtained in the trial, but also the other relevant information, which is relative and necessary to shape the story, and their play a decisive role. The major factors which influenced the jury to adopt expert opinion as follows. The credibility of forensic accounting expert, including the behavior of forensic accounting expert, the language of forensic accounting expert, the interests and motivation of forensic accounting expert. The credibility of forensic accounting expert opinion, including whethe the argument of forensic accounting expert opinion is adequacy, whethe the logical reasoning of forensic accounting expert opinion is strict, whethe the statement of forensic accounting expert opinion is clear.
(8) By no-admissibility, no-adoptability and adoptability three typical cases, this paper believes that Chinese current adopting of forensic accounting identification exite outstanding problems as follows. Forensic accounting identifications lack of procedural rationality, which embody that the commission is illegal and unnecessary. The financial accounting information which served as the object of forensic accounting identification is unreliable and incomplete. Forensic accounting experts do not testify in court and accepte query. The solution of these problems rely on putting the adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification into effect and building up relative guarantee measures and systems.
The innovation of this paper are as following three areas.
(1)The paper built up the general adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification bases on operation mechanism and theory of forensic accounting identification. The paper points out that adopting of forensic accounting identification is a systematic project firstly. It is an organic whole made up of three judicail subjects of different purposes and different functions which evaluate and judge expert evidence. The adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification is a general systematic project which embody the value concept of entity and procedural justice and fairness. The admisssibility is the premise of adopting,and is the basis of the whole adopting mechanism. The cross-examination is core content of the adopting mechanism, and adopting is the key piont of adopting mechanism.
(2) The paper references English and American admissibility rules of expert evidence and combines with the nature and characteristics of forensic accountants identification, then builds up the admissibility rules of opinion of forensic accounting identification, which provide guidance and help for judge to evaluate the evidence ability of expert opinion of forensic accounting identification.
(3) The Adoption evidence and asseting facts which sentenced by judge freely. However, demonstration procedures of free heart-proof lack of transparency, in theory, the inner process of adopting becmes blind point of research. This paper finds the main factors which influence judge and jury to adopt expert opinion of forensic accounting identification respectively based on disserting of thinking mode and rules of judge and analysing adopting model of jury. These factors contribute to improve degree of adopting forensic accounting identification expert opinion, guide the judges of fact to asset the facts and sentence the lawsuit.
引文
①Melissa Klein. Sarbanes-Oxlev fuels firm's forensic boom. June 2003 Accounting today
②来源于张苏彤,美国法务会计简介及其启示,《会计研究》,2004第7期,第91页。
①卢现祥著：《西方新制度经济学》,中国发展出版社1996年版,第124页。
②赫伯特·西蒙著：《现代决策理论的基石》,杨栎,徐立译,北京经济学院出版社1989年版,第20页。
①赫伯特·西蒙著：《西蒙选集(中译本)》黄涛译,首都经济贸易大学出版社2002年版,第247—248页。
②埃米尔·涂尔干著：《社会分工论》,渠东译,生活·读书·新知三联书店2000年版,第189页。
①阿尔文·A·艾伦斯等著：《审计学》,王英姿、杜英译,上海财经大学出版社2005年版,第13页。
②金或昉著：《论我国法务会计理论框架的构建及在诉讼支持中的运用》,复旦大学博士学位论文,2004年,第38页。
①石爱中、胡继荣著：《审计研究》,经济科学出版社2002年版,第17页。
①罗佰特·K·莫茨、候赛因·A·夏拉夫著：《审计理论结构》,文硕等译,中国商业出版社1990年版,第24页。
②杰里·D·沙利文等著：《蒙哥马利审计学》(上册),中国商业出版社1989年版,第5页。
③2010年注册会计师考试辅导教材《审计》,经济科学出版社2010年版,第186页。
①何家弘,两大法系证据制度比较论,《比较法研究》,2003年第4期,第66页。
①钱逢胜,会计信息失真问题研究,上海财经大学博士学位论文,1999年,第23页。
②谢德仁,会计信息的真实性与会计规则制定权合约安排,《经济研究》,2000年第5期,第12页。
③李明辉,结果理性抑或程序理性,《当代财经》,2005年第6期,第114页。
①刘善春著：《诉讼证据规则研究》,中国法制出版社2000年5月第1版,第455页。
①占善刚著：《民事证据法研究》,武汉大学出版社2009年版,第39页。
①米尔建·R.达马斯卡著：《漂移的证据法》,李学军等译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第20页。
①[美]理查德.A.波斯纳著：《证据法的经济分析》,徐听、徐均译,中国法制出版社2001年版,第159页。
②目前国家司法考试内容包括：理论法学、应用法学、现行法律规定、法律实务和法律职业道德。具体内容(社会主义法治理念、法理学、法制史、宪法、经济法、国际法、国际私法、国际经济法、法律职业道德与职业责任、刑法、刑事诉讼法、行政法与行政诉讼法、民法、商法、民事诉讼法等)包含前述相关法律知识。
③于朝著：《司法会计学(修订版)》,中国检察出版社2004年版,第353页。
①黄维智著：《鉴定证据制度研究》,中国检察出版社2006年版,第210页。
①周菁、王超,刑事证据法学的回溯与反思——兼论研究方法的转型,《中外法学》,2004年第3期,第34页。
①江伟主编：《证据法学》,法律出版社1999年版,第14页、第16页；陈一云主编：《证据学》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版,第32页。
②龙宗智(2004)也认为,自由心证是对证据证明力的自由评估,这就是自由判断原则。
①王纳新著：《法官的思维——司法认知的基本规律》,法律出版社2005年版,第65页。
①最高人民法院《关于民事诉讼证据若干规定》(2001)第47条规定,证据应当在法庭上出示,由当事人质证。未经质证的证据,不能作为认定案件事实的依据。
①杰里·D·沙利文等著：《蒙哥马利审计学》(上册),中国商业出版社1989年11月第1版,第16页。
①秦宗文著：《自由心证研究——以刑事诉讼为中心》,法律出版社2007年版,第114页。
②Neil Vidmar, Shari Seidman Diamond, Juries and Expert Evidence,66 Brooklyn L. Rev.1121-1133
③MaeCoun, R.J.(1989).Experimental research on jury decision-making.Science,244, pp1046-1050.
④毕玉谦著：《民事证据法判例实务研究》,法律出版社1999年版,第47页。
⑤[日]松冈义正著,张知本译：《民事证据论》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第64页。
[1]阿尔文·A·艾伦斯等著.王英姿、杜英译.审计学[M].上海：上海财经大学出版社,2005
[2]埃米尔·涂尔干著.渠东译.社会分工论[M].北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2000
[3]白岱恩.法务会计基础理论与应用研究[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2008
[4]白绿钝.卞建林译,美国联邦民事诉讼规则证据规则[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000
[5]包建明.司法鉴定启动程序比较研究[J].中国司法鉴定,2003,(1)
[6]包建明.论司法鉴定结论的质证及其制度之完善[J].中国司法鉴定,2004,(3)
[7]毕玉谦.民事证据法判例实务研究[M].北京：法律出版社,1999
[8]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
[9]曹建明.诉讼证据制度研究[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2001
[10]蔡敦铭.刑事诉讼法概要(修订新版)[M].台北：三民书局,1998
[11]陈丽娜、邓世雄等.论医疗鉴定制度的完善[J].医学与哲学(人文社会医学版),2008,(9)
[12]陈瑞华.司法鉴定制度改革之研究[G].司法鉴定研究(第1辑),2001
[13]陈孝.现代审计功能拓展研究[D].成都：西南财经大学博士论文,2006
[14]陈正伟.鉴识会计在法庭上的运用[D].台北：台湾国立政治大学硕士论文,2005
[15]陈紫云.谈鉴识会计,会计研究月刊[J].2006,(3)
[16]陈紫云.谈鉴识会计：事后调查犯罪,事前积极防止[J].会计研究月刊,2006,(3)
[17]陈紫云.后安隆时代：会计及稽核人员行情看涨[J].会计研究月刊,2005,(10)
[18]邓晴晴.法务会计准则建设的探讨[J].财会通讯,2006,(11)
[19]戴德明,周华.法务会计若十基本问题研究[J].贵州财经院学报,2001,(3)
[20]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
[21]樊崇义.客观真实管见[J].中国法学,2000,(1)
[22]樊崇义,郭华.鉴定结论质证问题研究[J].中国司法鉴定,2005,(3)
[23]方道茂.我国司法鉴定管理体制研究[D].武汉：华中科技大学博士学位论文, 2006
[24]冯萌,李若山等.从安然事件看美国法务会计的诉讼支持[J].会计研究,2003,(1)
[25]奉晓政.司法鉴定结论采信问题研究[J].广西社会科学,2006,(2)
[26]盖地,张敬峰.法务会计研究评述[J].会计研究,2003,(5)
[27]古淑萍.浅谈司法会计鉴定规范[J].云南财经大学学报(社会科学版),2009,(3)
[28]郭金霞.鉴定结论适用中的问题与对策研究[D].北京：中国政法大学博士学位论文,2008
[29]金或昉,李若山.法务会计专家在虚假陈述证券民事诉讼中的作用：国际经验及启示[J].会计研究,2007,(4)
[30]赫伯特·西蒙.现代决策理论的基石[M].杨栎,徐立译.北京：北京经济学院出版社,1989
[31]赫伯特·西蒙.西蒙选集(中译本)[M].黄涛译.北京：首都经济贸易大学出版社,2002
[32]何家弘.外国法庭科学鉴定制度初探[J].法学家,1995,(5)
[33]何家弘.司法鉴定导论[M].北京：法律出版社,2000
[34]何家弘,两大法系证据制度比较论[J].比较法研究,2003,(4)
[35]胡卫平,专家证据的可采性——美国法上的判例和规则及其法理分析[J].环球法律评论,2005,(6)
[36]黄维智.中立与合意——两大法系鉴定证据制度的融合[J].现代法学,2004,(2)
[37]黄维智.鉴定证据的证据能力研究[J].东岳论丛,2005,(6)
[38]黄维智.鉴定证据制度研究[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2006
[39]黄维智.刑事证明责任研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2007
[40]霍宪丹.关于司法鉴定若干问题的探讨[G].司法部法规教育司：司法鉴定研究(第1辑),2001
[41]郭华.鉴定结论论[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2007
[42]郭志媛.刑事证据可采性研究[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2004
[43]宫万路.鉴定人制度比较研究[J].证据学论坛(第1卷),2002
[44]江伟任.论会计司法鉴定的原则和方法[J].财务与会计,2000,(5)
[45]江显和.刑事认证制度研究[D].北京：中国政法大学博士学位论文,2007
[46]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,(1)
[47]蒋尧明.在证券民事诉讼中如何构建以注册会计师为主体的专家证人制度[J].审计研究,2006,(6)
[48]蒋洮婷.民事诉讼中司法会计鉴定意见及其质证研究[D].上海：华东政法大学硕士学位论文,2008
[49]季美君.专家证据制度比较研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2008
[50]金震华.专家意见书的法律性质[J].华东政法学院学报,2004,(1)
[51]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2005
[52]李德林,陈暮春.司法会计鉴定体系应予规范[J].财会月刊,2001,(4)
[53]李虹.两大法系有关司法鉴定的规定及对我国的启示[J].北京化工大学学报：社科版,2006,(4)
[54]李莉.论刑事证据的证据能力对证明力的影响[J].中外法学,1999,(4)
[55]李若山,谭菊芳等.论国际法务会计的需求与供给[J].会计研究,2000,(3)
[56]李学哲.注册会计师如何更好的从事司法会计鉴定工作[J].财经界(学术版),2009,(10)
[57]里德·黑斯蒂著.刘威、李恒译.陪审员的内心世界——陪审员裁决过程的心理分析[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2006
[58]理查德·A·波斯纳著.蒋兆康译.法律的经济学分析[M].北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1997
[59]聂昭伟.证明力与证据能力规则演变规律探究[J].西南政法大学学报,2007,(4)
[60]罗伯特.K.莫茨,侯赛因.A.夏拉夫著.文硕译.审计理论结构(第1版)[M].北京：中国商业出版社,1990
[61]龙宗智.确定无疑：我国刑事诉讼的证明标准[J].法学,2001,(11)
[62]龙宗智.印证与自由心证：我国刑事诉讼证明模式[J].法学研究,2004,(2)
[63]卢永红.论专家证人一美国专家证人制度的启迪与中国司法现实的思考[J].中央政法管理干部学院学报,2000,(6)
[64]刘敢生,覃兆平.英美法系意见证据制度机理与建立我国专家证据制度之构想[J].法官论坛,2003,(2)
[65]刘明辉,胡波.法务会计,舞弊审计与审计责任的历史演进[J].审计与经济研究,2006,(11)
[66]刘善春,毕玉谦,郑旭.诉讼证据规则研究[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000
[67]刘晓丹.美国证据规则[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2002
[68]刘英明.刑事鉴定结论采信规则及完善[J].人民论坛,2010,(23)
[69]马嘉应,苏英婷.企业舞弊的防制[J].会计研究月刊,2007,(5)
[70]马贤明,郑朝晖.以法务会计应对财务舞弊——兼具舞弊侦查能力发挥遏止欺骗效能[J].会计研究月刊,2006,(4)
[71]米尔建·R.达马斯卡著.李学军等译.漂移的证据法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2003
[72]闵银龙,许爱东.司法鉴定[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2004
[73]齐金勃.论我国司法会计鉴定标准体系[J].中国司法鉴定,2009,(5)
[74]秦宗文.自由心证研究[D].成都：四川大学博士学位论文,2005
[75]裘理瑾.转型时期中国法务会计发展的市场分析与研究[D].上海：复旦大学博士学位论文,2005
[76]庞建兵.我国司法会计的现状与发展[J].中国司法鉴定,2002,(1)
[77]邱宁波.司法会计鉴定制度研究[D].上海：华东政法大学硕士学位论文,2004
[78]任蓉.陪审团审判机理与实效研究[D].上海：复旦大学博士学位论文,2007
[79]苏英婷.分析美国财务报表舞弊特性与博达案共通性研究[D].东吴大学硕士论文,2006
[80]孙业群.司法鉴定制度改革研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2002
[81]孙健波.注册会计师从事司法会计鉴定问题探讨[J].中国注册会计师,2008,(3)
[82]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)
[83]滕晓春.司法鉴定程序通则中应关注的几个问题[J].中国司法鉴定,2008,(11)
[84]唐磊,张斌,黄维智.鉴定启动的“令状主义”与“随意主义” [J].中国司法鉴定,2004,(4)
[85]谭立.法务会计本质的若干视角[J].财经论丛,2005,(9)
[86]谭立.再论法务会计与财务会计的区别[J].金融与经济,2005,(10)
[87]田平安.鉴定结论论[J].现代法学,2000,(6)
[88]涂书田,程春华.英美国家的专家证据制度与我国专家证据制度的建立[J].南昌大学学报,2002,(7)
[89]谢盛纹.审计证据理论研究[M].成都：西南财经大学出版社,2007
[90]徐继军.专家证人研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004
[91]杨坚.论对鉴定结论的采信[J].哈尔滨学院学报,2007,(9)
[92]杨进高.司法会计鉴定失败原因浅析[J].财会月刊,2006,(4)
[93]杨为忠.司法会计鉴定理论与实务研究[M].上海：上海社会科学院出版社,2003
[94]伊芙琳.T.菲特丽丝.法律论证原理[M].北京：商务印书馆,2005
[95]王伯庭,陈伯诚等.刑事证据规则研究[M].吉林：吉林人民出版社,2002
[96]王鹏.论专家证据的采信[J].重庆科技学院学报：社会科学版,2008,(2)
[97]王乾.民事证据采信中的自由裁量权研究[D].苏州：苏州大学硕士论文,2007
[98]王国忠.刑事诉讼交叉询问之研究[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2007
[99]王利明.我国陪审制度研究[J].浙江社会科学,2000,(1)
[100]王纳新.法官的思维——司法认知的基本规律[M].北京：法律出版社,2005
[101]王振东.鉴识会计导入我国法制之研究[D].台北：国立政治大学硕士论文,2007
[102]温美琴.法务会计研究：回顾与展望[J].生产力研究,2007,(8)
[103]徐景和.两大法系司法鉴定制度之比较,司法鉴定立法研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2002
[104]许永亮.浅谈鉴识会计[J].今日会计,2007,(12)
[105]于朝.司法会计学(修订版)[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2004
[106]占善刚.民事证据法研究[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2009
[107]赵如兰.司法会计鉴定准则研究——以固定资产鉴定为例[J].云南财经大学学报(社会科学版),2009,(3)
[108]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)
[109]张蕊.诉讼会计：一个值得研究的新会计领域[J].财务与会计,1997,(12)
[110]张蕊.加强诉讼会计研究,拓展会计新领域[J].当代财经,1997,(12)
[111]张蕊.舞弊甄别与诉讼会计[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2000
[112]张蕊,谢舜明.法务会计的新领域：为证券民事诉讼提供专家支持[J].会计研究,2004,(5)
[113]张苏彤.美国法务会计简介及其启示[J].会计研究,2004,(7)
[114]张苏彤.法务会计研究[M].北京：中国时代经济出版社,2009
[115]张卫平.外国民事证据制度研究[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003
[116]张永泉.民事证据采信制度研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003
[117]郑未媚.自由心证原则研究：以刑事诉讼为视角[D].北京：中国政法大学博士学位论文,2005
[118]周湘雄.英美专家证人制度研究[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2006
[119]邹明理.司法鉴定[M].北京：法律出版社,2000
[120]邹明理.我国现行司法鉴定制度研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2001
[121]Andre A. Moenssens,Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases,The Foundation Press,Inc.,1978,11.
[122]Botina K Peterson&David R. Barnhill, Accountants as Expert Witness:A Primer on Meeting Daubert Challenges, Journal of Forensic Accounting,1524-5586/Vol.IV 2003, p.105-112.
[123]Crumbley, D. L, and N. Apostolou. Forensic accounting:A new growth area in accounting. Ohio CPA Journal.2002
[124]D. Larry Crumbley, Forensic and Investigative Accounting,2003CCH.P1-4
[125]Dale A. Nance,"Reliability and the Admissibility of Experts", Stton Hall Law Review, Vol.34:192.(2003)
[126]David N. Ricchiute.1998. Auditing&Assurance Services.5Edition: South-Western College Publishing
[127]Ed.Sautter.Witness and Expert Evidence.See:http://www.open.gov.uk/lcd/
[128]Ellsworth, Phoebe C., "Some steps between attitudes and verdiets in R.Hastie et al(ed.),Inside the Juror:The Psyehology of Juror Deeision Making, New York:Cambridge University Press, PP46-48,1993
[129]G.Jack.bologna&Robert.J.Lindquist, Fraud Auditing&Forensic Accounting:New Tools and Techniques Second Edition
[130]Ian Freckelton,Hugh Selby,Expert Evidence(third edition),Lawbook Co.2005,pp873-874
[131]Joel Cecil et al.,Citizen Comprehension of Difficult Issues:lessons from Civel Jury Trials,40 Am. U.L. Rev.,727(1991)
[132]John H. Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law, Tillers Rev., Boston, 1983,18 at 608.
[133]Kenneth W. Robinson, Accountants'Usefulness as Expert Witness Grows Complex, Journal of Accountancy (pre-1986). New York:May 1951.Vol.91 p:686.
[134]Lord Justice Dyson.Expert witnesses under the Civil Procedure Rules.Clinical Risk,2005,11(4):P148-156
[135]McCormick C., Scientific Evidence:Defining a new approach to admisssibility, 67Iowa L.Rev.879:911-912,1982
[136]MaeCoun.R.J. Experimental research on jury decision-making.Science,244, pp1046-1050.1989
[137]Melissa Klein, Sarbanes-Oxley fuels firm's forensic boom, June 2003 Accounting today
[138]Max Lourie, Forensic Accounting, New York Certified Public Accountant (pre-1986). New York:Nov 1953.Vol.23, Iss.000011:p.696.
[139]Neil Vidmar, Shari Seidman Diamond, Juries and Expert Evidence,66 Brooklyn L. Rev.1121-1133
[140]Pacini,C.Forensic risk management:The forensic accountant's role in fighting terrorist financing. Journal of Forensic Accounting.2002
[141]Pettus,A.B. The verdict is in:A study of jury decision making factors, moment of personal decision, and jury deliberations-from the jurors'point of view, Communication Ouarterly 38, pp83-90.1990
[142]POB. The Panel on Audit Effectiveness:Report and Recommen.2000
[143]Ronald, The Common Law Theory of Experts:Deference or Education? 87 Nw.U.L.Rev.,1131-1146,1993
[144]Samuel T. Shelton, Jury decision making:using group theory to improve deliberation, Politics& Policy, Vol.34, No.4, pp706-725,2006
[145]Scott Fillmer,Katheryn Cole,Lori Armistend, and Phil Tingle. Forensic accounting defined
[146]Simon, Hethert A., Administrative Behavior:A Study of Decision Making Proeesses in Adminstrative Organization, NewYork:The Free Press.1997
[147]Silverstone, H., and M. Sheetz. Forensic Accounting and Fraud Investigation for Non-Experts. New York, NY:John Wiley& Sons.2004
[148]Stephen Fogg, Books received:Forensic accounting handbook, Journal of Accountancy. NewYork:Aug1990.Vol.170,155.2:p.131
[149]Thomas A. Buckhoff and Richard W. Schrader. The Teaching of Forensic Accounting in the United States. Journal of Forensic Accounting
[150]Thomas Buckles.Laws of Evidence.The West Legal Studies Series,2003
[151]Wragge.Co LLP.Litigation(March).In-House Lawyer,2005
[152]Zeph Telpner&Michael Mostek, Expert Witness in Forensic Accounting.2003 by CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton London
②来源于张苏彤,美国法务会计简介及其启示,《会计研究》,2004第7期,第91页。
①卢现祥著：《西方新制度经济学》,中国发展出版社1996年版,第124页。
②赫伯特·西蒙著：《现代决策理论的基石》,杨栎,徐立译,北京经济学院出版社1989年版,第20页。
①赫伯特·西蒙著：《西蒙选集(中译本)》黄涛译,首都经济贸易大学出版社2002年版,第247—248页。
②埃米尔·涂尔干著：《社会分工论》,渠东译,生活·读书·新知三联书店2000年版,第189页。
①阿尔文·A·艾伦斯等著：《审计学》,王英姿、杜英译,上海财经大学出版社2005年版,第13页。
②金或昉著：《论我国法务会计理论框架的构建及在诉讼支持中的运用》,复旦大学博士学位论文,2004年,第38页。
①石爱中、胡继荣著：《审计研究》,经济科学出版社2002年版,第17页。
①罗佰特·K·莫茨、候赛因·A·夏拉夫著：《审计理论结构》,文硕等译,中国商业出版社1990年版,第24页。
②杰里·D·沙利文等著：《蒙哥马利审计学》(上册),中国商业出版社1989年版,第5页。
③2010年注册会计师考试辅导教材《审计》,经济科学出版社2010年版,第186页。
①何家弘,两大法系证据制度比较论,《比较法研究》,2003年第4期,第66页。
①钱逢胜,会计信息失真问题研究,上海财经大学博士学位论文,1999年,第23页。
②谢德仁,会计信息的真实性与会计规则制定权合约安排,《经济研究》,2000年第5期,第12页。
③李明辉,结果理性抑或程序理性,《当代财经》,2005年第6期,第114页。
①刘善春著：《诉讼证据规则研究》,中国法制出版社2000年5月第1版,第455页。
①占善刚著：《民事证据法研究》,武汉大学出版社2009年版,第39页。
①米尔建·R.达马斯卡著：《漂移的证据法》,李学军等译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第20页。
①[美]理查德.A.波斯纳著：《证据法的经济分析》,徐听、徐均译,中国法制出版社2001年版,第159页。
②目前国家司法考试内容包括：理论法学、应用法学、现行法律规定、法律实务和法律职业道德。具体内容(社会主义法治理念、法理学、法制史、宪法、经济法、国际法、国际私法、国际经济法、法律职业道德与职业责任、刑法、刑事诉讼法、行政法与行政诉讼法、民法、商法、民事诉讼法等)包含前述相关法律知识。
③于朝著：《司法会计学(修订版)》,中国检察出版社2004年版,第353页。
①黄维智著：《鉴定证据制度研究》,中国检察出版社2006年版,第210页。
①周菁、王超,刑事证据法学的回溯与反思——兼论研究方法的转型,《中外法学》,2004年第3期,第34页。
①江伟主编：《证据法学》,法律出版社1999年版,第14页、第16页；陈一云主编：《证据学》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版,第32页。
②龙宗智(2004)也认为,自由心证是对证据证明力的自由评估,这就是自由判断原则。
①王纳新著：《法官的思维——司法认知的基本规律》,法律出版社2005年版,第65页。
①最高人民法院《关于民事诉讼证据若干规定》(2001)第47条规定,证据应当在法庭上出示,由当事人质证。未经质证的证据,不能作为认定案件事实的依据。
①杰里·D·沙利文等著：《蒙哥马利审计学》(上册),中国商业出版社1989年11月第1版,第16页。
①秦宗文著：《自由心证研究——以刑事诉讼为中心》,法律出版社2007年版,第114页。
②Neil Vidmar, Shari Seidman Diamond, Juries and Expert Evidence,66 Brooklyn L. Rev.1121-1133
③MaeCoun, R.J.(1989).Experimental research on jury decision-making.Science,244, pp1046-1050.
④毕玉谦著：《民事证据法判例实务研究》,法律出版社1999年版,第47页。
⑤[日]松冈义正著,张知本译：《民事证据论》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第64页。
[1]阿尔文·A·艾伦斯等著.王英姿、杜英译.审计学[M].上海：上海财经大学出版社,2005
[2]埃米尔·涂尔干著.渠东译.社会分工论[M].北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2000
[3]白岱恩.法务会计基础理论与应用研究[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2008
[4]白绿钝.卞建林译,美国联邦民事诉讼规则证据规则[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000
[5]包建明.司法鉴定启动程序比较研究[J].中国司法鉴定,2003,(1)
[6]包建明.论司法鉴定结论的质证及其制度之完善[J].中国司法鉴定,2004,(3)
[7]毕玉谦.民事证据法判例实务研究[M].北京：法律出版社,1999
[8]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
[9]曹建明.诉讼证据制度研究[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2001
[10]蔡敦铭.刑事诉讼法概要(修订新版)[M].台北：三民书局,1998
[11]陈丽娜、邓世雄等.论医疗鉴定制度的完善[J].医学与哲学(人文社会医学版),2008,(9)
[12]陈瑞华.司法鉴定制度改革之研究[G].司法鉴定研究(第1辑),2001
[13]陈孝.现代审计功能拓展研究[D].成都：西南财经大学博士论文,2006
[14]陈正伟.鉴识会计在法庭上的运用[D].台北：台湾国立政治大学硕士论文,2005
[15]陈紫云.谈鉴识会计,会计研究月刊[J].2006,(3)
[16]陈紫云.谈鉴识会计：事后调查犯罪,事前积极防止[J].会计研究月刊,2006,(3)
[17]陈紫云.后安隆时代：会计及稽核人员行情看涨[J].会计研究月刊,2005,(10)
[18]邓晴晴.法务会计准则建设的探讨[J].财会通讯,2006,(11)
[19]戴德明,周华.法务会计若十基本问题研究[J].贵州财经院学报,2001,(3)
[20]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
[21]樊崇义.客观真实管见[J].中国法学,2000,(1)
[22]樊崇义,郭华.鉴定结论质证问题研究[J].中国司法鉴定,2005,(3)
[23]方道茂.我国司法鉴定管理体制研究[D].武汉：华中科技大学博士学位论文, 2006
[24]冯萌,李若山等.从安然事件看美国法务会计的诉讼支持[J].会计研究,2003,(1)
[25]奉晓政.司法鉴定结论采信问题研究[J].广西社会科学,2006,(2)
[26]盖地,张敬峰.法务会计研究评述[J].会计研究,2003,(5)
[27]古淑萍.浅谈司法会计鉴定规范[J].云南财经大学学报(社会科学版),2009,(3)
[28]郭金霞.鉴定结论适用中的问题与对策研究[D].北京：中国政法大学博士学位论文,2008
[29]金或昉,李若山.法务会计专家在虚假陈述证券民事诉讼中的作用：国际经验及启示[J].会计研究,2007,(4)
[30]赫伯特·西蒙.现代决策理论的基石[M].杨栎,徐立译.北京：北京经济学院出版社,1989
[31]赫伯特·西蒙.西蒙选集(中译本)[M].黄涛译.北京：首都经济贸易大学出版社,2002
[32]何家弘.外国法庭科学鉴定制度初探[J].法学家,1995,(5)
[33]何家弘.司法鉴定导论[M].北京：法律出版社,2000
[34]何家弘,两大法系证据制度比较论[J].比较法研究,2003,(4)
[35]胡卫平,专家证据的可采性——美国法上的判例和规则及其法理分析[J].环球法律评论,2005,(6)
[36]黄维智.中立与合意——两大法系鉴定证据制度的融合[J].现代法学,2004,(2)
[37]黄维智.鉴定证据的证据能力研究[J].东岳论丛,2005,(6)
[38]黄维智.鉴定证据制度研究[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2006
[39]黄维智.刑事证明责任研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2007
[40]霍宪丹.关于司法鉴定若干问题的探讨[G].司法部法规教育司：司法鉴定研究(第1辑),2001
[41]郭华.鉴定结论论[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2007
[42]郭志媛.刑事证据可采性研究[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2004
[43]宫万路.鉴定人制度比较研究[J].证据学论坛(第1卷),2002
[44]江伟任.论会计司法鉴定的原则和方法[J].财务与会计,2000,(5)
[45]江显和.刑事认证制度研究[D].北京：中国政法大学博士学位论文,2007
[46]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,(1)
[47]蒋尧明.在证券民事诉讼中如何构建以注册会计师为主体的专家证人制度[J].审计研究,2006,(6)
[48]蒋洮婷.民事诉讼中司法会计鉴定意见及其质证研究[D].上海：华东政法大学硕士学位论文,2008
[49]季美君.专家证据制度比较研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2008
[50]金震华.专家意见书的法律性质[J].华东政法学院学报,2004,(1)
[51]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2005
[52]李德林,陈暮春.司法会计鉴定体系应予规范[J].财会月刊,2001,(4)
[53]李虹.两大法系有关司法鉴定的规定及对我国的启示[J].北京化工大学学报：社科版,2006,(4)
[54]李莉.论刑事证据的证据能力对证明力的影响[J].中外法学,1999,(4)
[55]李若山,谭菊芳等.论国际法务会计的需求与供给[J].会计研究,2000,(3)
[56]李学哲.注册会计师如何更好的从事司法会计鉴定工作[J].财经界(学术版),2009,(10)
[57]里德·黑斯蒂著.刘威、李恒译.陪审员的内心世界——陪审员裁决过程的心理分析[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2006
[58]理查德·A·波斯纳著.蒋兆康译.法律的经济学分析[M].北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1997
[59]聂昭伟.证明力与证据能力规则演变规律探究[J].西南政法大学学报,2007,(4)
[60]罗伯特.K.莫茨,侯赛因.A.夏拉夫著.文硕译.审计理论结构(第1版)[M].北京：中国商业出版社,1990
[61]龙宗智.确定无疑：我国刑事诉讼的证明标准[J].法学,2001,(11)
[62]龙宗智.印证与自由心证：我国刑事诉讼证明模式[J].法学研究,2004,(2)
[63]卢永红.论专家证人一美国专家证人制度的启迪与中国司法现实的思考[J].中央政法管理干部学院学报,2000,(6)
[64]刘敢生,覃兆平.英美法系意见证据制度机理与建立我国专家证据制度之构想[J].法官论坛,2003,(2)
[65]刘明辉,胡波.法务会计,舞弊审计与审计责任的历史演进[J].审计与经济研究,2006,(11)
[66]刘善春,毕玉谦,郑旭.诉讼证据规则研究[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000
[67]刘晓丹.美国证据规则[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2002
[68]刘英明.刑事鉴定结论采信规则及完善[J].人民论坛,2010,(23)
[69]马嘉应,苏英婷.企业舞弊的防制[J].会计研究月刊,2007,(5)
[70]马贤明,郑朝晖.以法务会计应对财务舞弊——兼具舞弊侦查能力发挥遏止欺骗效能[J].会计研究月刊,2006,(4)
[71]米尔建·R.达马斯卡著.李学军等译.漂移的证据法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2003
[72]闵银龙,许爱东.司法鉴定[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2004
[73]齐金勃.论我国司法会计鉴定标准体系[J].中国司法鉴定,2009,(5)
[74]秦宗文.自由心证研究[D].成都：四川大学博士学位论文,2005
[75]裘理瑾.转型时期中国法务会计发展的市场分析与研究[D].上海：复旦大学博士学位论文,2005
[76]庞建兵.我国司法会计的现状与发展[J].中国司法鉴定,2002,(1)
[77]邱宁波.司法会计鉴定制度研究[D].上海：华东政法大学硕士学位论文,2004
[78]任蓉.陪审团审判机理与实效研究[D].上海：复旦大学博士学位论文,2007
[79]苏英婷.分析美国财务报表舞弊特性与博达案共通性研究[D].东吴大学硕士论文,2006
[80]孙业群.司法鉴定制度改革研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2002
[81]孙健波.注册会计师从事司法会计鉴定问题探讨[J].中国注册会计师,2008,(3)
[82]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)
[83]滕晓春.司法鉴定程序通则中应关注的几个问题[J].中国司法鉴定,2008,(11)
[84]唐磊,张斌,黄维智.鉴定启动的“令状主义”与“随意主义” [J].中国司法鉴定,2004,(4)
[85]谭立.法务会计本质的若干视角[J].财经论丛,2005,(9)
[86]谭立.再论法务会计与财务会计的区别[J].金融与经济,2005,(10)
[87]田平安.鉴定结论论[J].现代法学,2000,(6)
[88]涂书田,程春华.英美国家的专家证据制度与我国专家证据制度的建立[J].南昌大学学报,2002,(7)
[89]谢盛纹.审计证据理论研究[M].成都：西南财经大学出版社,2007
[90]徐继军.专家证人研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004
[91]杨坚.论对鉴定结论的采信[J].哈尔滨学院学报,2007,(9)
[92]杨进高.司法会计鉴定失败原因浅析[J].财会月刊,2006,(4)
[93]杨为忠.司法会计鉴定理论与实务研究[M].上海：上海社会科学院出版社,2003
[94]伊芙琳.T.菲特丽丝.法律论证原理[M].北京：商务印书馆,2005
[95]王伯庭,陈伯诚等.刑事证据规则研究[M].吉林：吉林人民出版社,2002
[96]王鹏.论专家证据的采信[J].重庆科技学院学报：社会科学版,2008,(2)
[97]王乾.民事证据采信中的自由裁量权研究[D].苏州：苏州大学硕士论文,2007
[98]王国忠.刑事诉讼交叉询问之研究[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2007
[99]王利明.我国陪审制度研究[J].浙江社会科学,2000,(1)
[100]王纳新.法官的思维——司法认知的基本规律[M].北京：法律出版社,2005
[101]王振东.鉴识会计导入我国法制之研究[D].台北：国立政治大学硕士论文,2007
[102]温美琴.法务会计研究：回顾与展望[J].生产力研究,2007,(8)
[103]徐景和.两大法系司法鉴定制度之比较,司法鉴定立法研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2002
[104]许永亮.浅谈鉴识会计[J].今日会计,2007,(12)
[105]于朝.司法会计学(修订版)[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2004
[106]占善刚.民事证据法研究[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2009
[107]赵如兰.司法会计鉴定准则研究——以固定资产鉴定为例[J].云南财经大学学报(社会科学版),2009,(3)
[108]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)
[109]张蕊.诉讼会计：一个值得研究的新会计领域[J].财务与会计,1997,(12)
[110]张蕊.加强诉讼会计研究,拓展会计新领域[J].当代财经,1997,(12)
[111]张蕊.舞弊甄别与诉讼会计[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2000
[112]张蕊,谢舜明.法务会计的新领域：为证券民事诉讼提供专家支持[J].会计研究,2004,(5)
[113]张苏彤.美国法务会计简介及其启示[J].会计研究,2004,(7)
[114]张苏彤.法务会计研究[M].北京：中国时代经济出版社,2009
[115]张卫平.外国民事证据制度研究[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003
[116]张永泉.民事证据采信制度研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003
[117]郑未媚.自由心证原则研究：以刑事诉讼为视角[D].北京：中国政法大学博士学位论文,2005
[118]周湘雄.英美专家证人制度研究[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2006
[119]邹明理.司法鉴定[M].北京：法律出版社,2000
[120]邹明理.我国现行司法鉴定制度研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2001
[121]Andre A. Moenssens,Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases,The Foundation Press,Inc.,1978,11.
[122]Botina K Peterson&David R. Barnhill, Accountants as Expert Witness:A Primer on Meeting Daubert Challenges, Journal of Forensic Accounting,1524-5586/Vol.IV 2003, p.105-112.
[123]Crumbley, D. L, and N. Apostolou. Forensic accounting:A new growth area in accounting. Ohio CPA Journal.2002
[124]D. Larry Crumbley, Forensic and Investigative Accounting,2003CCH.P1-4
[125]Dale A. Nance,"Reliability and the Admissibility of Experts", Stton Hall Law Review, Vol.34:192.(2003)
[126]David N. Ricchiute.1998. Auditing&Assurance Services.5Edition: South-Western College Publishing
[127]Ed.Sautter.Witness and Expert Evidence.See:http://www.open.gov.uk/lcd/
[128]Ellsworth, Phoebe C., "Some steps between attitudes and verdiets in R.Hastie et al(ed.),Inside the Juror:The Psyehology of Juror Deeision Making, New York:Cambridge University Press, PP46-48,1993
[129]G.Jack.bologna&Robert.J.Lindquist, Fraud Auditing&Forensic Accounting:New Tools and Techniques Second Edition
[130]Ian Freckelton,Hugh Selby,Expert Evidence(third edition),Lawbook Co.2005,pp873-874
[131]Joel Cecil et al.,Citizen Comprehension of Difficult Issues:lessons from Civel Jury Trials,40 Am. U.L. Rev.,727(1991)
[132]John H. Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law, Tillers Rev., Boston, 1983,18 at 608.
[133]Kenneth W. Robinson, Accountants'Usefulness as Expert Witness Grows Complex, Journal of Accountancy (pre-1986). New York:May 1951.Vol.91 p:686.
[134]Lord Justice Dyson.Expert witnesses under the Civil Procedure Rules.Clinical Risk,2005,11(4):P148-156
[135]McCormick C., Scientific Evidence:Defining a new approach to admisssibility, 67Iowa L.Rev.879:911-912,1982
[136]MaeCoun.R.J. Experimental research on jury decision-making.Science,244, pp1046-1050.1989
[137]Melissa Klein, Sarbanes-Oxley fuels firm's forensic boom, June 2003 Accounting today
[138]Max Lourie, Forensic Accounting, New York Certified Public Accountant (pre-1986). New York:Nov 1953.Vol.23, Iss.000011:p.696.
[139]Neil Vidmar, Shari Seidman Diamond, Juries and Expert Evidence,66 Brooklyn L. Rev.1121-1133
[140]Pacini,C.Forensic risk management:The forensic accountant's role in fighting terrorist financing. Journal of Forensic Accounting.2002
[141]Pettus,A.B. The verdict is in:A study of jury decision making factors, moment of personal decision, and jury deliberations-from the jurors'point of view, Communication Ouarterly 38, pp83-90.1990
[142]POB. The Panel on Audit Effectiveness:Report and Recommen.2000
[143]Ronald, The Common Law Theory of Experts:Deference or Education? 87 Nw.U.L.Rev.,1131-1146,1993
[144]Samuel T. Shelton, Jury decision making:using group theory to improve deliberation, Politics& Policy, Vol.34, No.4, pp706-725,2006
[145]Scott Fillmer,Katheryn Cole,Lori Armistend, and Phil Tingle. Forensic accounting defined
[146]Simon, Hethert A., Administrative Behavior:A Study of Decision Making Proeesses in Adminstrative Organization, NewYork:The Free Press.1997
[147]Silverstone, H., and M. Sheetz. Forensic Accounting and Fraud Investigation for Non-Experts. New York, NY:John Wiley& Sons.2004
[148]Stephen Fogg, Books received:Forensic accounting handbook, Journal of Accountancy. NewYork:Aug1990.Vol.170,155.2:p.131
[149]Thomas A. Buckhoff and Richard W. Schrader. The Teaching of Forensic Accounting in the United States. Journal of Forensic Accounting
[150]Thomas Buckles.Laws of Evidence.The West Legal Studies Series,2003
[151]Wragge.Co LLP.Litigation(March).In-House Lawyer,2005
[152]Zeph Telpner&Michael Mostek, Expert Witness in Forensic Accounting.2003 by CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton London