請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/25175
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 林嬋娟(Chan-Jane Lin) | |
dc.contributor.author | Hui-Chuan Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃惠娟 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T06:04:20Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2007-07-31 | |
dc.date.issued | 2007 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2007-07-23 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文部分:
公開資訊觀測站,http://newmops.tse.com.tw/。 今週刊,2004,博達葉素菲導演台灣版恩龍案-錢•謊言•大黑幕,第392期。 台灣士林地方法院民國93年金重訴字第3 號刑事判決。 台灣證券交易所,2001,上市公司重大舞弊案例解析及偵測之探討,取自台灣證券交易所網站:http://www.tse.com.tw/ch/products/publication/report.php。 行政院金融監督管理委員會(金管會),2004,金管證六字第0930006283號,取自金管會網站:http://www.fscey.gov.tw/。 ,2004,金管證六字第0930006284號,取自金管會網站:http://www.fscey.gov.tw/。 ,2004,金管證六字第0930003411號,取自金管會網站:http://www.fscey.gov.tw/。 ,2004,金管證六字第0930003412號,取自金管會網站:http://www.fscey.gov.tw/。 ,2004,金管證六字第0930003413號,取自金管會網站:http://www.fscey.gov.tw/。 ,2004,金管證六字第0930003414號,取自金管會網站:http://www.fscey.gov.tw/。 行政院金融監督管理委員會證券期貨局(簡稱證期局,原財政部證券管理委員會),2005,博達案及訊碟案相關處理情形之說明,取自證期局網站:http://www.sfb.gov.tw/reference/1-940525.doc。 ,1993,台財證 (六)字第81136號,取自證券暨期貨法令判解查詢系統:http://www.selaw.com.tw/。 吳當傑,2005,博達事件之啟示與教育意義,行政院金融監督管理委員會證券期貨局。 林賢郎,2004,銀行函證打太極 金管會不准,工商時報,8月24日。 馬秀如,2004,物不知其數:博達與會計師,會計研究月刊,第226期。 財團法人中華民國會計研究發展基金會會計準則委員會,2006,財務會計準則公報第1號「財務會計觀念架構及財務報表之編製」。 財團法人中華民國會計研究發展基金會審計準則委員會,1986,審計準則公報第9號「存貨盤點之觀察」。 ,1987,審計準則公報第12號「分析性複核」。 ,1993,審計準則公報第24號「重大性與查核風險」。 ,1998,審計準則公報第32號「內部控制之考量」。 ,1999,審計準則公報第33號「財務報表查核報告」。 ,2001,審計準則公報第37號「對受查者事業之瞭解」。 ,2005,審計準則公報第38號「函證」。 ,2006,審計準則公報第43號「查核財務報表對舞弊之考量」。 陳伯松,2004,從會計報表看博達案,經濟日報,7月4日。 ,2006,會計師專業上的懷疑,經濟日報,10月12日。 商業周刊,2004,葉素菲,五年玩掉550億市值-美麗的謊言,第866期。 ,2004,一個處分扯出兩大事務所情結,第871期。 富邦證券投資月報,2003,台灣砷化鎵代工產業概況,3月17日。 博達,1999年度~2004年第一季 財務報告。 葉銀華,2004,博達事件省思:從銀行治理看問題,會計研究月刊,第225期。 ,2004,上市公司 作帳手法 從本土邁向國際,經濟日報,11月21日。 資策會資訊市場情報中心(資策會,MIC),2001,我國砷化鎵晶圓代工產業發展現況(上),8月1日。 相關中國時報、聯合報、聯合晚報、經濟日報、工商時報等新聞報導。 DIGITIMES(電子時報),2003,2003 IT產業大勢-砷化鎵,1月23日。 ,2004,砷化鎵產業重洗牌,6月17日。 二、英文部分: Abbott, L., Y. Park, and S. Parker. 2000. The Effects of Audit Committee Activity and Independence on Corporate Fraud. Managerial Finance 26: 55-67. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1997. Statement of Auditing Standards (SAS) 82 Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. New York: AICPA. Anderson, U. and L. Koonce. 1995. Explanation as a Method for Evaluating Client-suggested Causes in Analytical Procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 14 (Fall): 124-132. Australian Government Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. 2006. Auditing Standard ASA 200 Objective and General Principles Governing an Audit of a Financial Report. Available at AUASB website: http://www.auasb.gov.au. Beasley, M. 1996. An Empirical Analysis of the Relation between Board of Director Composition and Financial Statement Fraud. The Accounting Review 71 (October): 443-465. Beasley, M., J. Carcello, D. Hermanson, and P. Lapides. 2000. Fraudulent Financial Reporting: Consideration of Industry Traits and Corporate Governance Mechanisms. Accounting Horizons 14 (December): 441-454. Bell, T. B. and J. V. Carcello. 2000. A Decision Aid for Assessing the Likelihood of Fraudulent Financial Reporting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 19 (Spring): 169-184. Beneish, M. 1997. Detecting GAAP Violations: Implications for Assessing Earnings Management among Firms with Extreme Financial Performance. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 16 (Fall): 271-309. Bierstaker, J., J. Bedard, and S. Biggs. 1999. The Role of Problem Representation Shifts in Auditor Decision Processes in Analytical Procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 18 (Spring): 19-36. Bonner, S. E., Z-V. Palmrose, and S. M. Young. 1998. Fraud Type and Auditor Litigation: An Analysis of SEC Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases. The Accounting Review 73 (October): 503-532. Brazel, Joseph F., Keith L. Jones, and Mark F. Zimbelman. 2006. What Can Nonfinancial Measures Tell Us About the Likelihood of Fraud? Working Paper Series Available at SSRN (February 23). Cressey, D. 1953. Other People’s Money; a Study in the Social Psychology of Embezzlement. Glencoe, IL, Free Press. Davidson, S., C. Stickney, and R. Weil. 1987. Accounting: The Language of Business, 7th ed. Sun Lakes, AZ: Thomas Horton and Daughter. Dechow, P., R. Sloan, and A. Sweeney. 1996. Causes and Consequences of Earnings Manipulation: An Analysis of Firms Subject to Enforcement Actions by the SEC. Contemporary Accounting Research 13 (1): 1-36. Erickson, M., B. Mayhew, and W. Felix. 2000. Why do Audits Fail? Evidence from Lincoln Savings and Loan. Journal of Accounting Research 38 (Spring): 165-194. Farber, D. 2005. Restoring Trust after Fraud: Does Corporate Governance Matter? The Accounting Review 80 (April): 539-561. Hirst, D.E. and L. Koonce. 1996. Audit Analytical Procedures: A Field Investigation. Contemporary Accounting Research 13 (Fall): 457-486. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) - International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. 2004. International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 240 The Auditor’s Responsibility to Consider Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements. Available at IFAC website: http://www.ifac.org. . 2006. ISA 700 The Independent Auditor’s Report on a Complete Set of General Purpose Financial Statements. Available at IFAC website: http://www.ifac.org. Lee, Thomas A., Robert W. Ingram, and Thomas P .Howard. 1999. The Difference between Earnings and Operating Cash Flow as an Indicator of Financial Reporting Fraud. Contemporary Accounting Research (Winter): 749-787. Levitt, A. 1998. The Numbers Game. Remarks by Chairman Arthur Levitt, Securities and Exchange Commission. Delivered at the NYU Center for Law and Business September 28, New York. Makkawi, Bilal and Allen Schick. 2003. Are Auditors Sensitive Enough to Fraud? Managerial Auditing Journal 18 (6/7): 591-599. McFadden, John. 1999. Managing Liability Risks: Client Acceptance and Retention for Public Audits. The Practicing CPA 23 (1): RMR 1-2. Messier, W., S. Glover, and D. Prawitt. 2006. Auditing and Assurance Services: A Systematic Approach, 4th edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Palmrose, Z-V. 1987. Litigation and Independent Auditors: The Role of Business Failures and Management Fraud. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 6 (Spring): 90-103. Payne, Elizabeth A and Robert J Ramsay. 2005. Fraud Risk Assessments and Auditors' Professional Skepticism. Managerial Auditing Journal 20 (3): 321-331. Rosner, Rebecca L. 2003. Earnings Manipulation in Failing Firms. Contemporary Accounting Research (Summer): 361-408. Schipper, K. 1989. Commentary on Earnings Management. Accounting Horizons 3 (December): 91-102. Skousen, Christopher J. and Charlotte J. Wright. 2006. Contemporaneous Risk Factors and the Prediction of Financial Statement Fraud. Working Paper Series Available at SSRN (August 24). Summers, S.L. and J.T. Sweeney. 1998. Fraudulent Misstated Financial Statements and Insider Trading: An Empirical Analysis. The Accounting Review 73 (January): 131-146. Tatum, Kay W, Brian Ballou, Joseph V Carcello, Peter R Gillett, and et al. 2001. Fraud: A Review of Academic Literature. The Auditor's Report Sarasota 24 (Winter): 3-7. Wells, Joseph T. 2004. Small Business, Big Losses: Audits and Hotlines Stack up as the Best Crime Busters in a New ACFE Study. Journal of Accountancy (December): 42-47. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/25175 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 企業舞弊事件一直不斷出現在國內外之新聞報導中,且大多涉及不實財務報導及挪用資產事件,並危害證券市場之穩定發展及廣大投資大眾等利益關係人之權益,同時嚴重影響會計師業之簽證公信力及大幅提高會計師之查核簽證責任與風險。有監於此,本文擬以博達案為例進行個案之研究,探討會計師能如何透過遵循審計準則公報第43號「查核財務報表對舞弊之考量」對舞弊風險之辨認評估(包括評估財務報表之不尋常或非預期關係及舞弊風險因子)及擬訂因應之查核對策等相關規範,以管理查核案件之舞弊風險,進而提升審計品質及降低簽證風險。
以博達案為例,於考量不尋常或非預期之關係及舞弊風險因子後,在整體財務報表層級建議之因應查核對策包括: 一、 在整個查核過程中,提高專業上之懷疑及多作整體性考量。 二、 適當的查核團隊之工作分配及督導,特別是由會計師領導查核工作之進行。 三、 測試內部控制是否有效設計及執行。 四、 評估博達所採用之會計政策及會計估計是否存在偏差。 五、 選擇查核程序之性質、時間及範圍時,應融入博達無法預期之因素。 六、 於查核報告日時點即應完成所有必要查核程序及取得所有適切查核證據。 七、 拒絶接受不合理的查核報告出具期限。 於考量不尋常或非預期之關係及舞弊風險因子後,辨認博達導因於舞弊之重大不實表達風險在現金、營業收入�應收帳款、進貨�應付帳款、存貨等科目,並建議之個別項目聲明層級之因應查核對策包括: 一、 發函詢證所有往來金融機構,並確實取得回函。 二、 確實執行鉅額現金收支之查核。 三、 對受查者之主要進、銷對象進行瞭解。 四、 親自拜訪主要進、銷貨對象。 五、 查核重大之應收帳款出售交易。 六、 備抵呆帳之評估。 七、 實地抽查盤點存貨。 八、 備抵存貨跌價損失之評估。 在因應管理階層踰越控制方面之查核對策建議包括: 一、 測試普通日記簿分錄及編製財務報表所作其他調整之適當性。 二、 複核可能導致重大不實表達之會計估計是否存有偏差。 三、 針對不尋常或非正常營運之重大交易,瞭解其交易動機及合理性。 查核人員於執行上述額外因應之查核程序時,除須隨時提高專業上之懷疑外,亦須運用專業判斷於查核工作之規劃、執行及意見表達等階段,以確保查核目的之達成。惟因查核舞弊存在一些先天限制,因此,即使會計師已依照一般公認審計準則規劃並執行查核工作,仍可能存在無法偵查到財務報表重大不實表達之風險。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Frauds are often mentioned in the news today, and most involve fraudulent financial statements and asset misappropriations. These frauds had resulted in instability of stock markets development and caused significant losses to immense stakeholders. Amidst these, the auditing profession also suffered from reputation losses, as well as faced with increased exposure to litigation and greater scrutiny. As such, this research used Procomp Case as an example to examine how auditors can manage fraud risks through complying with the guidelines relating to identification and assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud (including considerations of unusual or unexpected relationships and fraud risk factors), and determination of responses to address the assessed fraud risks as specified in local Statements of Auditing Standards No. 43 “The Auditor’s Responsibility to Consider Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements”, in order to increase audit quality and reduce audit risks.
Based on the considerations of identified Procomp Case’s unusual or unexpected relationships and fraud risk factors, the following overall responses are recommended: 1. Exercise increased professional skepticism and involve more general considerations apart from the planned specific procedures throughout the audit. 2. Appropriate assignment and supervision of personnel involved in the audit engagement, particularly the increased involvement of the audit engagement partner taking a lead throughout the audit. 3. Test the design and operating effectiveness of internal controls. 4. Consider the accounting policies and estimates used by the entity for biases. 5. Incorporate an element of unpredictability in the selection of the nature, timing, and extent of audit procedures. 6. Complete all necessary audit procedures and obtain sufficient appropriate evidence to support the audit report by the report date. 7. Refuse to accept unreasonable reporting deadlines. Based on the considerations of identified Procomp Case’s unusual or unexpected relationships and fraud risk factors, the following audit procedures responses at the assertion level are recommended: 1. Make confirmations with all corresponding financial institutions and ensure the direct receipt of all returned confirmations by auditors. 2. Test the business rationale of significant cash movements that are outside the normal course of business or that appear to be unusual. 3. Obtain an understanding of the entity’s major suppliers and customers. 4. Visit the entity’s major suppliers and customers. 5. Test the appropriateness of accounting for significant disposals of accounts receivable. 6. Evaluate the provision for doubtful accounts. 7. Perform tests of inventory counts. 8. Evaluate the provision for inventory valuation. To response to risks of management override of controls, the following audit procedures are recommended: 1. Test the appropriateness of journal entries. 2. Review accounting estimates for management biases. 3. Understand the business rationale of significant transactions that are outside the normal course of business or that appear to be unusual. When performing the additional audit procedures recommended above, the auditors need to constantly maintain an increased attitude of professional skepticism and exercise professional judgment at all stages of the audit to ensure the audit objectives are achieved. Nevertheless, due to the inherent limitations of an audit in the context of fraud, there is an unavoidable risk that the auditors may not detect some material misstatements of the financial statements even though they have properly planned and performed the audit in accordance with Statements of Auditing Standards. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T06:04:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-96-R92722050-1.pdf: 647243 bytes, checksum: 96ce30720f56aa0d445c49409360c887 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書…………………………………………………………… i
中文摘要……………………………………………………………………… ii 英文摘要……………………………………………………………………… iv 第一章 緒論…………………………………………………….………... 1 第一節 研究動機與目的…………………………………..……… 1 第二節 研究範圍…………………………………………..……… 3 第三節 研究架構…………………………………………..……… 4 第二章 文獻探討………………………………………………………… 6 第一節 盈餘管理、盈餘操縱及舞弊……………………..……… 6 第二節 會計師於查核財務報表時對舞弊之考量………..……… 9 第三章 博達案之舞弊手法分析……………………………….……….. 16 第一節 博達舞弊事件之背景……………………………..……… 16 第二節 博達案之舞弊型態………………………………..……… 17 第三節 從財務報告探討不尋常或非預期關係…………..……… 25 第四章 博達案之舞弊風險因子探討…………………………..………. 27 第一節 有關導因於財務報導舞弊之不實表達風險因子..……… 27 第二節 有關導因於挪用資產之不實表達風險因子……..……… 37 第五章 博達案之會計師因應查核對策探討…………………..………. 40 第一節 整體之查核對策………………………………..………… 41 第二節 個別項目聲明之查核程序……………………..………… 48 第三節 因應管理階層踰越控制之查核程序…………..………… 60 第六章 結論與建議……………………………………………..………. 66 第一節 研究結論………………………………………..………… 66 第二節 研究限制………………………………………..………… 69 第三節 未來研究方向與建議…………………………..………… 69 參考文獻…………………………………………………………...………… 71 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 會計師對舞弊風險之管理—以博達案為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Fraud Risks Management by Auditors - A Case Study on Procomp | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 95-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 柯承恩,蘇裕惠 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 舞弊,舞弊風險因子,審計風險,審計準則公報第43號,查核程序, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Fraud,Fraud Risk Factors,Audit Risk,SAS 43,Audit Procedures, | en |
dc.relation.page | 78 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2007-07-25 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 會計學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 會計學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-96-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 632.07 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。