會計師審計法律責任之研究-以本土判決案例為中心

Abstract

95年1月11日修正施行的證券交易法第20條之1，第3項明訂會計師對於公開發行公司審計失敗民事賠償責任；行政院所提新修正會計師法亦在立法院審議中，若修正完成，我國法制關於會計師的審計法律責任，將有明確規定。在新法可能強制會計師投保責任保險，及投資人保護中心積極對財報不實的涉案者提出訴訟的雙重背景下，日後會計師就其審計失敗的個案，將面臨極大的訴訟索賠壓力。 會計師審計業務執行所生的法律責任，是科際整合的研究議題。國內的研究，側重美國案例的介紹與立法政策抉擇的申論。有關司法實務界對會計師審計業務相關判決的整理，則付諸闕如。本文整理現有的七個會計師法律責任的實務判決，再佐以近年博達、國揚等十餘個重大財報不實的管理舞弊案例判決，融入會計師審計業務執行及其法律責任論述中，以明瞭法院在具體審計議題的官方看法，作為會計實務界的重要參考。 本文架構，「緒論」章中除介紹研究動機外，並將研究心得結論提早申述。「財務報表的形成」、「財務報表之審計」等兩個章節，依序介紹審計標的、審計工作，並在重要議題如報表調整權、重大性等，引述法院在實務判決表示的見解。「財報不實與審計失敗」則是本文由會計學領域的討論步入法律學領域討論的轉折點，以法院判決文字表述具體的財報不實案例，並討論審計失敗、審計過失的概念，發現司法界似乎不認為一般公認審計準則的遵守，可以形成會計師無過失的充分條件。「會計師審計失敗的一般民事責任」和「證券交易法會計師審計失敗的法律責任」兩章，除了對會計師的民事、刑事責任依法律條文的規定與美國判決先例，分類論述外，並以台灣僅有控告會計師的六個民事判決和一個刑事判決，置入相關歸責條文中說明，顯然我國法院基於衡平的考量，拒絕就會計師的輕微過失判令高額的損害賠償。此一現象在證券交易法新增訂第20條之1第5項對會計師審計過失明定僅負「比例責任」後，容或有改變之可能。筆者並對會計師審計過失與投資人損失的「損害因果關係」提出看法，試圖以因果關係推衍的限縮，使發生審計過失的失職會計師，負擔合理數額的審計失敗賠償責任。

On January 11 of 2006, the amendment of the Security Exchange Act about the external auditor’s civil liability has been put into force. In addition, the amendment of the Certified Public Accountant Act (called the CPA Act）proposed by The Executive Yuan is canvassed in the Legislative Yuan, if the amendment is adopted, there will be a definite framework of the auditor’s liability. Because the amendment of the CPA Act may possibly enforce CPAs to take out the liability insurance, and the Investors Protection Center may take actions of false financial statement forwardly, the CPAs will face heavy pressure of litigation in the future. The liability of CPAs is a matter involved in different subjects. The domestic research stresses introduction of the U.S. cases and the legislation policy choice. The collation of related judicial practical is lacking. The dissertation collates seven judgments about CPAs’ liability and also introduces several cases about management fraud to develop the judicial points of view in such cases and to provide suggestions for CPAs. The first chapter of this dissertation introduces the research motive and research conclusion in advance. The following two chapters, “the Arising Process of Financial Statement” and “the auditing of Financial Statement”, introduce the auditing objects, the auditing process, several considerable issues and the judicial points of view. The following chapter, “False Financial Statement and Auditing Fail”, is a turning point from accounting to law, discusses such concepts by judicial decisions, and finds that the court didn’t consider the compliance of GAASs being a absolute reason to prevent liability. The last two chapters, “the General Civil Liability of CPAs” and “the CPAs’ Legal Liability under the Security Exchange Act”, allocate the civil liability, the criminal liability of CPAs, and the leading cases in U.S. to compare with domestic judgments. It is obviously that the court didn’t let the CPAs take the heavy burden on the basis of the concept of equity. And this appearance may change after the amendment of the Security Exchange Act has been taken into force. The dissertation also defines the causation in order to let CPAs take reasonable liability.