本文關(guān)鍵詞： 證券立法 職業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)師 舞弊揭發(fā)行為 倫理困境 公共利益　出處：《中央財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)》2017年08期 　論文類(lèi)型：期刊論文

【摘要】：職業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)師在揭發(fā)公司舞弊上承擔(dān)了越來(lái)越多的社會(huì)期望與法規(guī)要求,但職業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)師在舞弊揭發(fā)上面臨兩難困境:一方面需要遵循"保守秘密"的職業(yè)操守,另一方面又要承擔(dān)揭示舞弊、維護(hù)公眾利益的責(zé)任。20世紀(jì)90年代以來(lái),美國(guó)會(huì)計(jì)職業(yè)界與證券立法機(jī)構(gòu)在職業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)師舞弊揭發(fā)行為準(zhǔn)則制定與立法規(guī)制上存有顯著立場(chǎng)差異并不斷博弈。會(huì)計(jì)職業(yè)準(zhǔn)則規(guī)范的出發(fā)點(diǎn)是保護(hù)會(huì)計(jì)職業(yè)利益,通過(guò)漸進(jìn)式的、以技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)修訂為中心的改革策略來(lái)應(yīng)對(duì)不斷擴(kuò)大的審計(jì)期望差距;而證券監(jiān)管立法則建立了以維護(hù)公共利益為出發(fā)點(diǎn)的多層次舞弊揭發(fā)法規(guī)體系,通過(guò)《證券交易法案》的"強(qiáng)制要求"、《多德—弗蘭克法案》的"經(jīng)濟(jì)激勵(lì)"與《薩班斯法案》的"權(quán)益保護(hù)"等制度來(lái)化解職業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)師舞弊揭發(fā)的倫理困境與消極態(tài)度,并在一定程度上縮小審計(jì)期望差距。筆者在借鑒美國(guó)舞弊揭發(fā)立法規(guī)制實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上,對(duì)我國(guó)的舞弊揭發(fā)權(quán)益保障制度、證券舞弊揭發(fā)激勵(lì)制度、會(huì)計(jì)職業(yè)準(zhǔn)則的完善提供了具體政策建議。
[Abstract]:Professional accountants have undertaken more and more social expectations and regulations to expose corporate fraud. However, professional accountants face a dilemma in fraud disclosure: on the one hand, they need to follow the professional conduct of "keeping secrets". On the other hand, it is the responsibility to reveal fraud and safeguard the public interest. Since 90s of the 20th century, The accounting profession and the securities legislature in the United States have significant differences in their positions on the establishment and regulation of the professional accountants' fraud and disclosure of conduct standards, and continue to play games. The starting point of the accounting professional standards is to protect the interests of the accounting profession. Through the gradual, technical standard revision as the center of the reform strategy to deal with the ever-widening gap in audit expectations, and the securities regulatory legislation to safeguard the public interest as the starting point of the multi-level fraud disclosure law system, Through the "mandatory requirements" of the Securities and Exchange Act, the "economic incentives" of the "Dodd-Frank Act" and the "protection of rights and interests" of the "Sarbanes Act", the ethical dilemma and negative attitude of professional accountants to expose fraud are resolved. And to a certain extent, I narrow the gap of audit expectation. On the basis of the practical experience of American fraud disclosure legislation, the author tries to protect the rights and interests of fraud disclosure in our country, and the incentive system of securities fraud disclosure. The improvement of accounting professional standards provides specific policy recommendations.
【作者單位】： 審計(jì)署審計(jì)科研所與中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院財(cái)經(jīng)戰(zhàn)略研究院聯(lián)合博士后工作站;
【基金】：國(guó)家社科基金重點(diǎn)項(xiàng)目“基于內(nèi)部控制視角的腐敗防控機(jī)制與實(shí)現(xiàn)路徑研究”(項(xiàng)目編號(hào):15AJY002) 教育部人文社科基金青年項(xiàng)目“國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定話(huà)語(yǔ)權(quán)形成機(jī)制與中國(guó)參與策略研究”(項(xiàng)目編號(hào):16YJC790053) 浙江省哲學(xué)社科基金一般項(xiàng)目“公司治理視域下民營(yíng)企業(yè)舞弊揭發(fā)行為與制度研究:以浙江省為例”(項(xiàng)目編號(hào):16NDJC152YB)
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D971.2;DD912.2
，

本文編號(hào)：1526401