查核財務報表對舞弊之考量：鑑識會計應用之探討

Abstract

2001年起的恩隆案開始的舞弊案使世人開始檢視會計師的審計查核程序是否能發現舞弊，從2006年開始「鑑識會計」一詞，發展至今已近10年。鑑識會計觀念逐漸受到社會大眾的重視，雖然審計準則公報四十三號「查核財務報表對舞弊之考量」也有提到對於舞弊考量應執行的程序，但如何將鑑識會計運用於查核程序中是可以加以討論的。本研究以探討會計師的查核程序中如何可以將鑑識會計的觀念加以運用來降低審計風險，將審計準則及會計師事務所的查核程序中舞弊之考量與鑑識會計整理其差異比較，並選擇財務報表中的重大科目查核程序下可能會發生的舞弊類型及情形，再運用實務上進行查核中將鑑識會計的觀念導入後可再進行的程序，以偵測出舞弊的狀況。 本研究首先回顧國內外對於鑑識會計的專業說明及定義，也將財務審計與鑑識會計的差異加以分析整理，進而將鑑識會計可以運用的時機提出建議。鑑識會計雖然有部分也是使用到審計學的方式，但二者工作的規劃、執行及觀念上仍有些差異，將會計師公會訂的實務指引與KPMG的舞弊調查程序彙整來探討與審計準則中的差別，以凸顯出有那些地方是可以再將鑑識會計的觀念導入審計查核程序。本研究從應收帳款及銷貨收入與存貨的可能發生舞弊的類型若只執行一般正常的查核程序可能發生的疏漏，運用了鑑識會計的概念增加一些程序，可以彌補些查核程序未明確訂明而可能產生的未即時偵測舞弊的風險。雖然在查核程序中加入鑑識會計的觀念是可行的，但也仍有許多挑戰要克服，為了讓財務報表更值得信賴及因應社會大眾的需要，將鑑識會計的觀念導入審計程序是未來會計師界可以發展的方向。

In light of the Enron scandal revealed in 2001 and the various financial fraud incidents that followed, the industry as well as the general public began scrutinizing whether CPA financial audit program are sufficient enough to detect fraud. In 2006 a new term “Forensic Accounting” was adopted and branched its own development for 10 years. Today, the notion of “Forensic Accounting” is gradually being recognized by the general public. Whilst procedures for an auditor to consider fraud during financial statement reviews are addressed in No. 43 of the Statements of Auditing Standards, the application of forensic accounting methodologies in audit program execution plans can be considered. This research aims to discuss audit risk mitigation with the approach of incorporating forensic accounting concepts into CPA audit programs, perform gap analysis on accounting firm’s anti-fraud audit programs against forensic accounting audit approaches, identify potential fraudulent activity scenario for the significant accounts related to financial statement audit and introducing additional forensic accounting audit techniques to uncover fraud in practice. The thesis will start off with terminology introduction on forensic accounting, its professionalism and definition across the globe, analyze the differences between standard financial audit and forensic accounting, and recommend scenarios where forensic accounting can be utilized. Similarities do exist and some forensic accounting leverages on standard auditing techniques, but the two differ from project planning and execution perspective. Hence the practical audit guidelines from the Taiwan CPA

association will be consolidated with KPMG fraud investigation procedures to identify the gaps against Statements of Auditing Standards for the purpose of highlighting areas where forensic accounting techniques can be adopted to enhance audit programs. For instance, certain fraud scenarios may remain undetected should auditors only conduct standard AR, Sales and Inventory tests, the addition of applicable forensic accounting tests enhances audit scope integrity, mitigating risk of miss detecting fraud scenarios that would otherwise remain hidden. Although incorporating forensic accounting concept has been field trialed and proven effective, there are still many obstacles and challenges ahead to standardize the practice. For the sake of generating more reliable and trust-worthy financial report, standardizing forensic accounting concept into regular financial audit can be considered as a development path for the CPA industry in the future.