以會計觀點論法院對財務資訊不實之認定──以隱匿為中心

Abstract

司法訴訟實務常需要針其他專業領域的工作做出認定，財務會計即為一例，而由於法官檢察官原則上並非會計專業，則渠等在處理事涉會計專業案件時的認定結果，若悖離會計實務及專業，則除了個案本身無法發現真實或解決紛爭外，進而更可能影響整體司法的公信力。本論文為期能促進法律與會計的整合，而先由會計學理出發，分析財務資訊的本質以及形成過程，再整合會計、審計及法律實務及學理，就財務資訊不實的相關定義、態樣加以整理後，進一步針對財務資訊不實態樣中的「隱匿」加以深入分析。再就構成財務資訊不實的「重大性」要件併同討論後，由會計學理、實務之觀點，就我國已公開之「刑事」判決，擇其中關於單純財務資訊隱匿之案件進行分析，試圖由判決所認定之犯罪事實及理由，討論法院做出之判斷及認定，是否符合前述之會計學理及實務，最後則透過我國刑事訴訟法之鑑定人制度的介紹，討論鑑識會計在我國司法實務的未來，以及會計師在訴訟程序中所可能扮演的角色，而提出往後司法實務在處理重大關涉會計專業案件時，可採行的方向。 本論文經依上開之方式研究後，認為應負刑事責任之財務資訊不實態樣應大別為「虛偽」及「隱匿」二種獨立之類型，而「重大性」應為構成財務資訊不實的不成文構成要件，且在特定案中，無論係會計入帳、審計查核或法院認定是否構成財務資訊不實，重大性標準均應同一無二致。又經分析僅構成財務資訊隱匿（即不含虛偽）之個案，法院認定之結果尚能與會計專業相符合，可能之原因主要在於財務資訊隱匿就判別上較為單純之故。而依目前之刑事訴訟關於鑑定人制度之實務運作，未來刑事訴訟程序在處理關涉會計專業之案件時，可依涉案公司的規模以及對市場、經濟的影響大小來分類，可分別採行由政府機關成立之非常設鑑定單位進行機關鑑定，或委請單一會計師擔任鑑定人。

Courts need to make judgments about many other professional works very often, such as financial accounting. However the judges and prosecutors are not experts in accounting, if the judgment made by them conflict with the accounting professional, not only the truth of the case will be concealed; the creditability of the justice system will also be harmed. This thesis will analyze the basis of financial information and the process of firming financial information with the accounting theories in the first, then integrate practice and theories of the accounting, auditing and legal, to discuss the definition and types of financial information false. Moreover, to discuss and analyze the “materiality” factor of the financial information false and the type of “omission” in further. After that, this thesis analyzes some real criminal adjudication; compare the judgment of the courts with the accounting professional to discover whether the judgments of courts apply the accounting principles properly. Finally, this thesis discusses the future of forensic accounting in legal practice, and makes some suggestions of it. The conclusion of this thesis is the misrepresentation and omission are different types of financial information false. And the “materiality” standard are the same in a particular case no matter when the information been booked or audited or determined as an omission. The judgment of courts in financial information omission cases, are basically apply the accounting principles properly. The likely reason could be the process to determine whether the information been omitted is relatively simple. Finally, the courts could use institutional appraisal or individual appraisal, depends on the scale of influence of the case.