資訊不實與會計師審計責任

Abstract

本研究主要探討《證券交易法》第20條、第20-1條，有關簽證會計師資訊不實之民事損害賠償責任。 本研究在第三章，針對目前投保訴訟有關簽證會計師責任的案例，進行全面性的整理。針對所蒐集到的22個個案，43件判決，分析判決結果。並對其中數件判決會計師應負擔損害賠償責任的案例，包括正義食品案、宏傳電子案、宏億國際案、合邦電子案以及雅新科技案等，於第四章進行剖繪，說明法院判決簽證會計師應負擔損害賠償責任之理由。 在第五章，本研究結合學說見解與實務案例，對會計師責任的「歸責事由」、「專業懷疑」、「審查界限」等議題，進行分析，並在第六章提出兩個審查標準，包括實體上的重大性原則，以及程序上的判斷餘地原則，作為界定審查界限之方法，以避免會計師承擔過度的損害賠償責任。 針對重大性原則，本研究建議採取美國證券管理委員會於1999年公布「第99號幕僚會計公告」所提出之質性及量性標準，予以判斷。在「質」的部分，以理性之人有實質可能性認為重要之事作為界線，在「量」的部分，則以對於公司淨利影響是否超過5％，作為判斷標準。如理性之人認為不重要的事項，或者影響淨利低於5％的情況，法院即無審查會計師是否應負損害賠償責任的必要。 其次，本研究同時建議，參考「判斷餘地」的概念，法院只在會計師執行審計作業時，有程序違背法令、事實認定錯誤，或有逾越權限、濫用權力的情況，始予介入審查，倘若會計師說明其審計作業流程、所據查核證據並無違法（合法性審查），法院即不再審查審計結果之妥當性，以保留簽證會計師在執行審計業務時，應有之判斷空間。

This thesis focuses on the civil liability arising from certified public accountant (CPA)’s misrepresentation when performing attestation under Article 20 and Article 20-1 of the Securities and Exchange Act of Taiwan. Chapter 3 of this thesis contains comprehensive compilation of securities investors’ protection cases regarding CPA’s civil liability arising from performing attestation. Such compilation is completed by analyzing 22 cases and 43 judgements collected. For judgements which CPA’s civil liability arising from performing attestation is ruled, including the cases regarding Cheng I Food Co. Ltd., Well Communication Corp., Hong Yi International Corp., Avid Electronics Corp., and Ya Hsin Industrial Co., Ltd., Chapter 4 provides explanations as to the grounds for court’s ruling on CPA’s civil liability. In Chapter 5, with the combination of academic perspective and practical cases, analysis is given on issues of “attribution”, “professional’s suspicion” and “limits on scrutiny”. Following Chapter 5, for the avoidance of CPA bearing excessive civil liability, two standards for scrutiny are proposed in Chapter 6 as the methods of defining “limits on scrutiny”, including materiality principle in substantive aspect, and margin of judgement in procedural aspect. As for materiality principle, this thesis suggests that both quantitative and qualitative materiality principle issued in SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 by United States Securities and Exchange Commission in 1999 be adopted. For “qualitative materiality”, limits should be placed on whether or not a reasonable person would consider certain information to be of material nature. For “quantitative materiality”, limits should be placed on whether or not certain information has affected the company in its net profit over 5%. If certain information is considered of non-material nature or does not affect the company’s net profit over 5%, the court has no need to scrutinize CPA’s civil liability. Further, it is suggested that “margin of judgement” be taken as a standard for determining whether or not information contained in financial statements has been duly reported. The court is entitled to scrutinize only in scenarios that that have been breach of procedural regulations, fault in findings of fact, or conduct of ultra vires or abuse of power. If the CPA demonstrates no violation of regulations in the course of audit and attestation (scrutiny in legality), the court no longer scrutinizes further for the appropriateness of audit report so as to preserve CPA’s margin of judgement which they shall be accorded to when auditing.