会计舞弊财务舞弊外文文献翻译

会计舞弊财务舞弊外文文献翻译

(含：英文原文及中文译文)

文献出处：Badawi I M. Global corporate accounting frauds and action for reforms[J]. Review of Business, 2005, :26(:2).

英文原文

Global Corporate Accounting Frauds and Action for Reforms

Ibrahim Badawi

St. John’s University

Abstract

The recent wave of corporate fraudulent financial reporting has prompted global actions for reforms in corporate governance and financial reporting, by governments and accounting and auditing standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and internationally, including the European Commission; the International Federation of Accountants; the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and others, in order to restore investor confidence in financial reporting, the accounting profession and global financial markets.

Introduction

During the recent series of corporate fraudulent financial reporting incidents in the U.S., similar corporate scandals were disclosed in several other countries. Almost all cases of foreign corporate accounting frauds were committed by entities that conduct their businesses in more than one

country, and most of these entities are also listed on U.S. stock exchanges. Following the legislative and regulatory reforms of corporate America, resulting from the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002, reforms were also initiated worldwide. The primary purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) to identify the prominent American and foreign companies involved in fraudulent financial reporting and the nature of accounting irregularities they committed; and (2) to highlight the global reaction for corporate reforms which are aimed at restoring investor confidence in financial reporting, the public accounting profession and global capital markets.

Cases of Global Corporate Accounting Frauds

The list of corporate financial accounting scandals in the U.S. is extensive, and each one was the result of one or more creative accounting irregularities. Exhibit 1 identifies a sample of U.S. companies that committed such fraud and the nature of their fraudulent financial reporting activities.

Who Commits Financial Fraud and How

There are three groups of business people who commit financial statement frauds. They range from senior management (CEO and CFO); mid- and lower-level management; and organizational criminals [6,16]. CEOs and CFOs commit accounting frauds to conceal true business performance, to preserve personal status and control and to maintain personal income and wealth. Mid- and lower-level employees falsify

financial statements related to their area of responsibility (subsidiary, division or other unit) to conceal poor performance and/or to earn performance-based bonuses. Organizational criminals falsify financial statements to obtain loans or to inflate a stock they plan to sell in a “pump-and-dump” scheme. Methods of financial statement schemes range from fictitious or fabricated revenues; altering the times at which revenues are recognized; improper asset valuations and reporting; concealing liabilities and expenses; and improper financial statement disclosures.

Global Regulatory Action for Corporate and Accounting Reforms

In response to corporate and accounting scandals, the effects of which are still being felt throughout the U.S. economy, and in order to protect public interest and to restore investor confidence in the capital market, U.S. lawmakers, in a compromise by the House and Senate, passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. President Bush signed this Act into law (Public Law 107-204) on July 30, 2002. The Act resulted in major changes to compliance practices of large U.S. and non-U.S. companies whose securities are listed or traded on U.S. stock exchanges, requiring executives, boards of directors and external auditors to undertake measures to implement greater accountability, responsibility and transparency of financial reporting. The statutes of the Act, and the new SEC initiatives that followed [1,4,8,12,15], are considered the most

significant legislation and regulations affecting the corporate community and the accounting profession since 1933. Other U.S. regulatory bodies such as NYSE, NASDAQ and the State Societies of CPAs have also passed new regulations which place additional burdens on publicly traded companies and their external auditors.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOA) is expressly applicable to any non-U.S. company registered on U.S. exchanges under either the Securities Act of 1933 or the Security Exchange Act of 1934, regardless of country of incorporation or corporate domicile. Furthermore, external auditors of such registrants, regardless of their nationality or place of business, are subject to the oversight of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and to the statutory requirements of the SOA.

The United States’ SOA has reverberated around the globe through the corporate and accounting reforms addressed by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC); the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); the European Commission (UC); and authoritative bodies within individual European countries.

International Federation of Accountants (IFAC)

The IFAC is a private governance organization whose members are the national professional associations of accountants. It formally describes itself as the global representative of the accounting profession, with the objective of serving the public interest, strengthening the

worldwide accountancy profession and contributing to the development of strong international economies by establishing and promoting adherence to high quality standards [9]. The Federation represents accountancy groups worldwide and has served as a reminder that restoring public confidence in financial reporting and the accounting profession should be considered a global mission. It is also considered a key player in the global auditing arena which, among other things, constructs international standards on auditing and has laid down an international ethical code for professional accountants [14]. The IFAC has recently secured a degree of support for its endeavors from some of the world’s most influential international organizations in econom ic and financial spheres, including global Financial Stability Forum (FSF), the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), the World Bank and, most significantly, the EC. In October 2002, IFAC commissioned a Task Force on Rebuilding Public Confidence in Financial Reporting to use a global perspective to consider how to restore the credibility of financial reporting and corporate disclosure. Its report, “Rebuilding Public Confidence in Financial Reporting: An International Perspective,” in cludes recommendations for strengthening corporate governance, and raising the regulating standards of issuers. Among its conclusions and recommendations related to audit committees are:

1. All public interest entities should have an independent audit

committee or similar body.

2. The audit committee should regularly report to the board and should address concerns about financial information, internal controls or the audit.

3. The audit committee must meet regularly and have sufficient time to perform its role effectively.

4. Audit committees should have core responsibilities, including monitoring and reviewing the integrity of financial reporting, financial controls, the internal audit function, as well as for recommending, working with and monitoring the external auditors.

5. Audit committee members should be financially literate and a majority should have “substantial financial experience.” They should receive further training as necessary on their responsibilities and on the company.

6. Audit committ ees should have regular private “executive sessions” with the outside auditors and the head of the internal audit department. These executive sessions should not include members of management. There should be similar meetings with the chief financial officer and other key financial executives, but without other members of management.

7. Audit committee members should be independent of management.

8. There should be a principles-based approach to defining

independence on an international level. Companies should disclose committee members’ credentials, remuneration and shareholdings.

9. Reinforcing the role of the audit committee should improve the relationship between the auditor and the company. The audit committee should recommend the hiring and firing of auditors and approve their fees, as well as review the audit plan. 10. The IFAC Code of Ethics should be the foundation for individual national independence rules. It should be relied on in making decisions on whether auditors should provide non-audit services. Non-audit services performed by the auditor should be approved by the audit committee.

11. All fees, for audit and non-audit services, should be disclosed to shareholders.

12. Key audit team members, including the engagement and independent review partners, should serve no longer than seven years on the audit.

13. Two years should pass before a key audit team member can take

a position at the company as a director or any other important management position

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is a quasi-think tank made up of 30 member countries, including

the United States and United Kingdom, and it has working relationships with more than 70 other countries. In 2004, the OECD unveiled the updated revision of its “Principles of Corporate Governance” that had originally been adopted by its member governments (including the U.S. and UK) in 1999. Although they are nonbinding, the principles provide a reference for national legislation and regulation, as well as guidance for stock exchanges, investors, corporations and other parties [11,13]. The principles have long become an international benchmark for policy makers, investors, corporations and other stakeholders worldwide. They have advanced the corporate governance agenda and provided specific guidance for legislative and regulatory initiatives in both the OECD and non-OECD countries.

The 2004 updated version of “Principles of Corporate Governance” includes recommendations on accounting and auditing standards, the independence of board members and the need for boards to act in the interest of the company and the shareholders. The updated version also sets more demanding standards in a number of areas that impact corporate executive compensation and finance, such as:

1. Granting investors the right to nominate company directors, as well as a more forceful role in electing them.

2. Providing shareholders with a voice in the compensation policy for board members and executives, and giving these stockholders the

ability to submit questions to auditors.

3. Mandating that institutional investors disclose their overall voting policies and how they manage material conflicts of interest that may affect the way the investors exercise key ownership functions, such as voting

4. Identifying the need for effective protection of creditor rights and an efficient system for dealing with corporate insolvency.

5. Directing rating agencies, brokers and other providers of information that could influence investor decisions to disclose conflicts of interest, and how those conflicts are being managed.

6. Mandating board members to be more rigorous in disclosing related party transactions, and protecting socalled “whistle blowers” by providing the employees with confidential access to a board-level contact.

U.S.-EU Cooperation for Corporate Reforms Initially, the European Union resented applicability of U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act reforms to European companies and accounting firms operating in the U.S. However, after a series of negotiations, the U.S. and EU authorities have agreed to cooperate and decided to develop a compatible set of regulations. The regulatory bodies on both continents have undertaken a two-way cooperative approach based on effective equivalence of regulation and oversight authorities. Furthermore, member states of the European Union have proposed a code of conduct on the independent auditors which

includes a five-year auditor rotation requirement. Furthermore, the national governments of the individual European countries have proposed reforms of their corporate laws. For example, in July 2002, the British government released a white paper proposing changes to the Company Law, which included harsher penalties for misleading auditors; redefining the roles of the directors; and creating standards for boards in accounting supervision and other disclosure issues. The British government is also reviewing the roles of non-executive directors and is considering the regulation of audit committees.

中文译文

全球企业会计欺诈与改革行动

易卜拉欣·巴达维

圣约翰大学

摘要

最近一波企业欺诈性财务报告激发了全球公司治理和财务报告改革，政府和会计和审计机构在美国和国际上的标准制定机构，包括欧盟委员会，国际会计师联合会;经济合作与发展组织;以恢复投资者对财务报告，会计行业和全球金融市场的信心。

引言

在美国最近发生的一系列企业欺诈性财务报告事件中，其他几个国家也披露了类似的公司丑闻。几乎所有的外国公司会计欺诈案件都

是由在不止一个国家开展业务的实体承担的，而且这些实体大部分也在美国证券交易所上市。继2002年“萨班斯- 奥克斯利法案”对美国公司进行立法和监管改革后，全球也开始进行改革。本文的主要目的有两个：（1）确定参与欺诈性财务报告的着名美国和外国公司以及他们所犯下的会计违规行为的性质; （2）强调企业改革的全球反应，旨在恢复投资者对财务报告，公共会计行业和全球资本市场的信心。

全球企业会计欺诈案例

美国企业财务会计丑闻清单广泛，每一个都是一个或多个创造性会计违规行为的结果。图表1列出了发生此类欺诈的美国公司的样本及其欺诈性财务报告活动的性质。

谁承担金融诈骗和如何

有三类商业人士进行财务报表欺诈。他们从高级管理层（首席执行官和首席财务官）开始;中，下层管理人员;和组织罪犯[6,16]。首席执行官和首席财务官犯下会计欺诈行为来掩盖真实的业务表现，保护个人身份和控制权，并维持个人收入和财富。中下级员工伪造与其责任区（子公司，部门或其他单位）有关的财务报表，以隐瞒不佳绩效和/或获得基于绩效的奖金。组织犯罪分子伪造财务报表以获取贷款或者通过“泵送和转储”计划对他们计划出售的股票进行充值。财务报表方法的方法范围从虚构或制造收入;改变收入确认的时间;不恰当的资产评估和报告;隐瞒负债和费用;和不正当的财务报表披露。

全球企业和会计改革监管行动

为了应对企业和会计丑闻，其影响在整个美国经济中依然存在，

为了保护公众利益和恢复投资者对资本市场的信心，美国众议院议员在众议院和参议院的妥协中，通过了2002年的“萨班斯- 奥克斯利法案”。布什总统于2002年7月30日将此法纳入法律（公法107-204）。该法案导致美国和非美国大型证券公司的合规惯例发生重大变化或在美国证券交易所进行交易，要求高管，董事会和外部审计师采取措施落实财务报告的更大责任，责任和透明度。该法案的法规以及遵循[1,4,8,12,15]之后的新的证券交易委员会倡议被认为是自1933年以来影响企业界和会计界的最重要的立法和法规。其他美国监管机构，例如纽约证券交易所，纳斯达克和国家注册会计师协会也通过了新的法规，给上市公司和外部审计师带来额外的负担。

萨班斯- 奥克斯利法案（SOA）明确适用于在美国交易所根据1933年证券法或1934年证券交易法注册的任何非美国公司，无论其注册国家或公司在哪里。此外，此类注册人的外部审计师（不论其国籍或业务地点）受公众公司会计监督委员会（PCAOB）的监督以及SOA的法定要求的约束。

美国的SOA通过国际会计师联合会（IFAC）的公司和会计改革在全球范围内引起了共鸣;经济合作与发展组织（经合组织）;欧盟委员会（UC）;欧洲各国的权威机构。

国际会计师联合会（IFAC）

IFAC是一个私人治理组织，其成员是全国会计师专业协会。它正式将自己形容为会计行业的全球代表，旨在为公众利益服务，加强全球会计行业，并通过建立和促进遵守高质量标准来促进强大的国际

经济发展[9]。该联合会代表全世界的会计团体，并提醒人们重申，恢复公众对财务报告和会计行业的信心应被视为全球使命。它也被认为是全球审计领域的一个关键角色，其中包括构建审计的国际标准并为专业会计师制定了国际道德准则[14]。IFAC最近获得了一定程度的支持，来自世界上一些最具影响力的经济和金融领域的国际组织，其中包括全球金融稳定论坛（FSF），国际证券委员会组织（IOSCO），世界银行和，最重要的是欧共体。2002年10月，IFAC委托重建公众信心财务报告工作组，以全球视角考虑如何恢复财务报告和公司披露的可信度。其报告“重建公众对财务报告的信心：国际视角”包括加强公司治理的建议，并提高发行人的监管标准。有关审计委员会的结论和建议如下：

1.所有公共利益实体都应该有一个独立的审计委员会或类似的机构。

2.审计委员会应定期向董事会报告，并应解决有关财务信息，内部控制或审计的担忧。

3.审计委员会必须定期开会并有足够的时间有效地发挥其作用。

4.审计委员会应负有核心职责，包括监督和审查财务报告的完整性，财务控制，内部审计职能，以及建议，协调和监督外部审计师。

5.审计委员会成员应具有丰富的财务知识，多数人应具备“丰富的财务经验”。他们应该在必要时接受有关其职责和公司的进一步培训。

6.审计委员会应定期与外部审计师和内部审计部门负责人进行

私人“执行会议”。这些行政会议不应包括管理人员。应该与首席财务官和其他主要财务主管进行类似的会议，但没有其他管理层成员。

7.审计委员会成员应独立于管理层。

8.应该有一种基于原则的方法来界定国际一级的独立性。公司应披露委员会成员的资格，薪酬和股权。

9.加强审计委员会的作用应能改善审计师与公司之间的关系。审计委员会应该建议聘用和解雇审计师并批准他们的费用，并审查审计计划。10. IFAC道德守则应成为个别国家独立规则的基础。在决定审计师是否应该提供非审计服务时应该依靠它。审计师执行的非审计服务应经审计委员会批准。

11.审计和非审计服务的所有费用都应向股东披露。

12.主要审计小组成员，包括参与和独立审查合作伙伴，其审计时间不得超过七年。

13.关键审计组成员可以在公司担任董事或其他重要管理职位之前两年通过

经济合作与发展组织（经合组织）

经济合作与发展组织（OECD）是一个由30个成员国组成的准智库，其中包括美国和英国，并与70多个其他国家建立了工作关系。2004年，经合组织公布了其最新成员国政府（包括美国和英国）于1999年通过的“公司治理原则”的修订版。尽管它们不具约束性，但这些原则为国家立法和监管，以及对证券交易所，投资者，公司和其他各方的指导[11,13]。这些原则早已成为决策者，投资者，公司和

全球其他利益相关者的国际基准。他们推进了公司治理议程，并为经合组织和非经合组织国家的立法和监管举措提供了具体指导。

2004年“公司治理原则”更新版包括关于会计和审计标准的建议，董事会成员的独立性以及董事会需要为公司和股东的利益行事的需要。更新后的版本还在影响企业高管薪酬和财务的若干领域制定了更严格的标准，例如：

1.授予投资者提名公司董事的权利，以及在选举他们时更有力的角色。

2.向股东提供董事会成员和高管的薪酬政策发言权，并赋予这些股东向审计师提交问题的能力。

3.要求机构投资者披露其整体投票政策，以及他们如何管理可能影响投资者行使关键所有权职能方式的重大利益冲突，如投票

4.确定有效保护债权的必要性和处理公司破产的有效制度。

5.指导可能影响投资者决策的评级机构，经纪人和其他信息提供者披露利益冲突以及如何管理这些冲突。

6.要求董事会成员在披露关联方交易方面更加严格，并通过为员工提供保密的董事会层面联系方式来保护所谓的“举报人”。

美欧企业改革合作最初，欧盟不满适用于美国萨班斯- 奥克斯利法改革的欧洲公司和在美国经营的会计师事务所。然而，经过一系列谈判后，美国和欧盟当局已同意合作并决定制定一套兼容的规定。两大洲的监管机构采取了基于监管当局和监管当局有效等同性的双向合作方式。此外，欧盟成员国已经提出了独立审计师行为守则，其

中包括五年审计员轮换要求。此外，欧洲各国的国家政府也提出了公司法改革建议。例如，2002年7月，英国政府发布了一份白皮书，建议修改“公司法”，其中包括对误导审计人员的更严厉处罚;重新定义董事的角色;为会计监督和其他披露事宜制定董事会标准。英国政府也在审查非执行董事的角色，并正在考虑对审计委员会进行监管。