A Comparative study of Accountants’ Administrative Responsibilities of Securities and Exchange Act on Listed Companies in Cross-straits for Inauthentic Attestation

• Main Authors: Chiou,Chang-Hui, 邱鐘輝
• Other Authors: 易建明
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 102
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/38196856487023808981

碩士 === 南台科技大學 === 財經法律研究所 === 101 === As the second largest economy in the world, China's securities market holds a significant role in the world; China’s turnover of listed stock in 2011 was approximately CNY 26,197.4 million, which ranked 21 in market value in the global securities markets. With the cross-straits economic exchange advancing, Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) was entered into on June 12, 2010 by two sides of the Taiwan straits and came into effect on September 12, which is an important milestone and has a material impact on the normalization of the cross-straits economic relationship.At present, the mainland and Taiwan are negotiating service trade agreement. The securities market will open in the future, and the market access of accountants has become a big issue. In addition, Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Financial Supervision (MOU) has been entered into at the end of 2009, and came into effect on January 16, 2011. Cross-straight supervision information exchange on securities and futures industry between two sides is one of those projects and accountants’ supervisory cooperation in securities market cross-straits in the future is also an important issue. Therefore, accountants’ attestation is a key indicator of investing. Nowadays we have accountants practising in PRC. Inauthentic Attestation of our (ROC) accountants is defined as “Material false or error on financial statements, files or data reported or announced by accountants for the companies, or issuing false or untrue reports and comments in breach of audit responsibility; or failure in verification or report against above material false or error on financial statements in accordance with relevant laws and regulations and generally accepted auditing standards by accountants.” As accountant’s attestation has been the important part of securities market’s management, it’s necessary to compare the scope of financial attestation, differences of attestation opinions and administration liabilities in the securities market of listed companies between cross-straits accountants for Financial Supervisory Commission ROC, Certified Public Accountant ROC and general investors’ reference. The present study consists of 8 chapters. Chapter 1 is Introduction. Chapter 2 is the Legislation Evolution of Account's Administration Liabilities on Public Traded Company in Cross-straights for Inauthentic Attestation. This chapter has two sections. Section one compares the legislation evolution for Article 36 of Securities Exchange Act: the Annual Financial Report and Submission Deadline, Article 37: Administration of Accounts’ Check and Attestation and Article 174 Disqualification of Accountant to Attestation; and Section two explores the legislation development and evolution of Article 173 Securities Service Organization’s check and verification on preparing and issuance of documents, Article 223 Administrative Penalties and administration liabilities for major direct responsible person and other direct responsible persons and chartered public accountant of related accounting firm. Chapter three is the scope comparison between the Accountant Attestation of ROC and Accountant Audit Report of PRC. It mainly addresses the norm and scope of Securities Exchange Act upon chartered public accountant and the dissemblance with PRC’s Securities Law upon its chartered public accountant. Chapter 4 is the comparison of standardization of Accountants' attestation opinions, which discusses the differences of yearly report and quarterly report of ROC and PRC. This chapter consists of two sections: Section 1, the comparison of ROC’s Statement of Audit Standards NO.33 (Audit Report of Financial Statement) and PRC's Specific Independent Auditing Standard No.7-Audit Report for the differences upon the attestation practice of accountant's yearly opinion report. Section 2 discusses the differences between ROC’s Audit Standards No. 36 (Auditing financial report) – Auditing Report and PRC’s Explanations to non-standard attestation practice. Chapter 5 is the Cases Concerning the Administration Liability of Accountants in Cross-straits, which make analysis of the administrative sanction of ROC’s accountants according to the Item 3 of Article 37 of Securities and Exchange Act and PRC’s accountants’ administrative penalty according to Article 223 of Securities Law. Chapter 6 is the Discussion of PRC’s Accountants’ Administrative Responsibilities of Securities and Exchange Act on Public Traded Company in Cross-straits for Inauthentic Attestation, which makes discussion of topics such as the difference between maintaining investment populism by ROC and PRC’s socialism characteristics, the difference between our ROC’s administrative sanction and PRC’s administrative penalty, the difference of frequency of enterprise disclosure for financial statements, the difference of transparency and turbidity of administrative supervision, the difference of types of accountants’ administration liability, the existence of administration liability for direct executive person and other directly responsible persons of accounting firms, and single-law supervision and multiple-law supervision. Chapter 7 is the Discussion of Relevant Issues concerning Securities and Exchange Act and Securities Law in Cross-straits Accountants’ Administrative Responsibilities, which makes discussion of ROC's Securities and Exchange Act and PRC's Securities Law for standardizing accountants’ administration liability. The last chapter is the Conclusion and Suggestions for Relevant Issues, which makes conclusion for this paper and expects the improvement and mutual understanding of accountant fields and security markets in cross-straits. This paper makes research for the above-mentioned chapters. The above chapters are analyzed in this paper with the preliminary conclusions as follows: I. Article 174(I) (7) of the Securities Exchange Act specifies a trend on intensifying criminal responsibility of false visas obtained by accountants. It is necessary to make a comparative study on countries such as the United States and Japan in the future. II. In terms of visa report value, China has a lower audit report value of China’s Certified Public Accountant visas on the development of securities market. III. According to “Visa Comments of Accountants” and empirical analysis, protection and education of investors in our country are insufficient and shall be advised to be strengthened. IV. Markets will be opened up in the mainland and Taiwan, and competent authorities of the mainland and Taiwan as well as investors shall pay attention to the differences of “disclosure frequency, Opinion Report of Accountants, and disciplinary punishment publicized”. V. Furthermore, proposals on amendment will be put forward in terms of comments on supervision and visas in this paper.