对财务报表舞弊的思考【外文翻译】 .doc

外文文献翻译原文：Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement AuditDescription and Characteristics of FraudFraud is a broad legal concept and auditors do not make legal determinations of whether fraud has occurred. Rather, the auditor's interest specifically relates to acts that result in a material misstatement of the financial statements. The primary factor that distinguishes fraud from error is whether the underlying action that results in the misstatement of the financial statements is intentional or unintentional. For purposes of the Statement, fraud is an intentional act that results in a material misstatement in financial statements that are the subject of an audit.Intent is often difficult to determine, particularly in matters involving accounting estimates and the application of accounting principles. For example, unreasonable accounting estimates may be unintentional or may be the result of an intentional attempt to misstate the financial statements. Although an audit is not designed to determine intent, the auditor has a responsibility to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether the misstatement is intentional or not.Two types of misstatements are relevant to the auditor's consideration of fraud misstatements arising from fraudulent financial reporting and misstatements arising from misappropriation of assets. 1、Misstatements arising from fraudulent financial reporting are intentional misstatements or omissions of amounts or disclosures in financial statements designed to deceive financial statement users where the effect causes the financial statements not to be presented, in all material respects, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Fraudulent financial reporting may be accomplished by the following:（1）Manipulation, falsification, or alteration of accounting records or supporting documents from which financial statements are prepared（2）Misrepresentation in or intentional omission from the financial statements of events, transactions, or other significant information（3）Intentional misapplication of accounting principles relating to amounts, classification, manner of presentation, or disclosureFraudulent financial reporting need not be the result of a grand plan or conspiracy. It may be that management representatives rationalize the appropriateness of a material misstatement, for example, as an aggressive rather than indefensible interpretation of complex accounting rules, or as a temporary misstatement of financial statements, including interim statements, expected to be corrected later when operational results improve.2、Misstatements arising from misappropriation of assets (sometimes referred to as theft or defalcation) involve the theft of an entity's assets where the effect of the theft causes the financial statements not to be presented, in all material respects, in conformity with GAAP. Misappropriation of assets can be accomplished in various ways, including embezzling receipts, stealing assets, or causing an entity to pay for goods or services that have not been received. Misappropriation of assets may be accompanied by false or misleading records or documents, possibly created by circumventing controls. The scope of this Statement includes only those misappropriations of assets for which the effect of the misappropriation causes the financial statements not to be fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with GAAP.Three conditions generally are present when fraud occurs. First, management or other employees have an incentive or are under pressure, which provides a reason to commit fraud. Second, circumstances exist for example, the absence of controls, ineffective controls, or the ability of management to override controls that provide an opportunity for a fraud to be perpetrated. Third, those involved are able to rationalize committing a fraudulent act. Some individuals possess an attitude, character, or set of ethical values that allow them to knowingly and intentionally commit a dishonest act. However, even otherwise honest individuals can commit fraud in an environment that imposes sufficient pressure on them. The greater the incentive or pressure, the more likely an individual will be able to rationalize the acceptability of committing fraud.Management has a unique ability to perpetrate fraud because it frequently is in a position to directly or indirectly manipulate accounting records and present fraudulent financial information. Fraudulent financial reporting often involves management override of controls that otherwise may appear to be operating effectively.6 Management can either direct employees to perpetrate fraud or solicit their help in carrying it out. In addition, management personnel at a component of the entity may be in a position to manipulate the accounting records of the component in a manner that causes a material misstatement in the consolidated financial statements of the entity. Management override of controls can occur in unpredictable ways.Frauds have been committed by management override of existing controls using such techniques as (a) recording fictitious journal entries, particularly those recorded close to the end of an accounting period to manipulate operating results, (b) intentionally biasing assumptions and judgments used to estimate account balances, and (c) altering records and terms related to significant and unusual transactions.Typically, management and employees engaged in fraud will take steps to conceal the fraud from the auditors and others within and outside the organization. Fraud may be concealed by withholding evidence or misrepresenting information in response to inquiries or by falsifying documentation. For example, management that engages in fraudulent financial reporting might alter shipping documents. Employees or members of management who misappropriate cash might try to conceal their thefts by forging signatures or falsifying electronic approvals on disbursement authorizations. An audit conducted in accordance with GAAS rarely involves the authentication of such documentation, nor are auditors trained as or expected to be experts in such authentication. In addition, an auditor may not discover the existence of a modification of documentation through a side agreement that management or a third party has not disclosed.Fraud also may be concealed through collusion among management, employees, or third parties. Collusion may cause the auditor who has properly performed the audit to conclude that evidence provided is persuasive when it is, in fact, false. For example, through collusion, false evidence that controls have been operating effectively may be presented to the auditor, or consistent misleading explanations may be given to the auditor by more than one individual within the entity to explain an unexpected result of an analytical procedure. As another example, the auditor may receive a false confirmation from a third party that is in collusion with management.Although fraud usually is concealed and managements intent is difficult to determine, the presence of certain conditions may suggest to the auditor the possibility that fraud may exist. For example, an important contract may be missing, a subsidiary ledger may not be satisfactorily reconciled to its control account, or the results of an analytical procedure performed during the audit may not be consistent with expectations. However, these conditions may be the result of circumstances other than fraud. Documents may legitimately have been lost or misfiled； the subsidiary ledger may be out of balance with its control account because of an unintentional accounting error； and unexpected analytical relationships may be the result of unanticipated changes in underlying economic factors. Even reports of alleged fraud may not always be reliable because an employee or outsider may be mistaken or may be motivated for unknown reasons to make a false allegation.As indicated in paragraph 1, the auditor has a responsibility to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. However, absolute assurance is not attainable and thus even a properly planned and performed audit may not detect a material misstatement resulting from fraud. A material misstatement may not be detected because of the nature of audit evidence or because the characteristics of fraud as discussed above may cause the auditor to rely unknowingly on audit evidence that appears to be valid, but is, in fact, false and fraudulent. Furthermore, audit procedures that are effective for detecting an error may be ineffective for detecting fraud.The Importance of Exercising Professional SkepticismDue professional care requires the auditor to exercise professional skepticism. See SAS No. 1, Codification of Auditing Standards and Procedures (AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 1, AU sec. 230.07.09, “Due Professional Care in the Performance of Work”). Because of the characteristics of fraud, the auditors exercise of professional skepticism is important when considering the risk of material misstatement due to fraud. Professional skepticism is an attitude that includes a questioning mind and a critical assessment of audit evidence. The auditor should conduct the engagement with a mindset that recognizes the possibility that a material misstatement due to fraud could be present, regardless of any past experience with the entity and regardless of the auditors belief about managements honesty and integrity. Furthermore, professional skepticism requires an ongoing questioning of whether the information and evidence obtained suggests that a material misstatement due to fraud has occurred. In exercising professional skepticism in gathering and evaluating evidence, the auditor should not be satisfied with less-than-persuasive evidence because of a belief that management is honest.Considering Fraud Risk FactorsBecause fraud is usually concealed, material misstatements due to fraud are difficult to detect. Nevertheless, the auditor may identify events or conditions that indicate incentives/pressures to perpetrate fraud, opportunities to carry out the fraud, or attitudes/rationalizations to justify a fraudulent action. Such events or conditions are referred to as “fraud risk factors.” Fraud risk factors do not necessarily indicate the existence of fraud； however, they often are present in circumstances where fraud exists. When obtaining information about the entity and its environment, the auditor should consider whether the information indicates that one or more fraud risk factors are present. The auditor should use professional judgment in determining whether a risk factor is present and should be considered in identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement due to fraud.Examples of fraud risk factors related to fraudulent financial reporting and misappropriation of assets are presented in the Appendix . These illustrative risk factors are classified based on the three conditions generally present when fraud exists: incentive/pressure to perpetrate fraud, an opportunity to carry out the fraud, and attitude/rationalization to justify the fraudulent action. Although the risk factors cover a broad range of situations, they are only examples and, accordingly, the auditor may wish to consider additional or different risk factors. Not all of these examples are relevant in all circumstances, and some may be of greater or lesser significance in entities of different size or with different ownership characteristics or circumstances. Also, the order of the examples of risk factors provided is not intended to reflect their relative importance or frequency of occurrence. Overall Responses to the Risk of Material Misstatement Judgments about the risk of material misstatement due to fraud have an overall effect on how the audit is conducted in the following ways:Assignment of personnel and supervision. The knowledge, skill, and ability of personnel assigned significant engagement responsibilities should be commensurate with the auditor's assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud for the engagement. For example, the auditor may respond to an identified risk of material misstatement due to fraud by assigning additional persons with specialized skill and knowledge, such as forensic and information technology (IT) specialists, or by assigning more experienced personnel to the engagement. In addition, the extent of supervision should reflect the risks of material misstatement due to fraud (see SAS No. 22, AU sec. 311.11).Accounting principles. The auditor should consider managements selection and application of significant accounting principles, particularly those related to subjective measurements and complex transactions. In this respect, the auditor may have a greater concern about whether the accounting principles selected and policies adopted are being applied in an inappropriate manner to create a material misstatement of the financial statements. In developing judgments about the quality of such principles (see SAS No. 61, Communication With Audit Committees AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 1, AU sec. 380.11), the auditor should consider whether their collective application indicates a bias that may create such a material misstatement of thefinancial statements.source：American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.Consideration Of Fraud in a Financial Statement AuditJ. Accounting Research Manager, 2002,5:2430. 译文：对财务报表舞弊的思考（一）舞弊的特征舞弊是一个广泛的法律概念，审计师无法准确判断是否发生了舞弊行为。相反，审计师的利益特别是有关行为往往会造成误报。判断舞弊的主要要素是：舞弊行为是否是有意或无意而造成了财务报表的错报。所以，舞弊是一种故意的欺诈行为，对财务报表进行了虚假的描述。然而是否是故意行为往往难以确定，特别是在涉及会计估计和会计原则的适用问题时。例如：不合理的会计估计可能是无意的或可能是故意虚报财务报表。虽然审计的目的不是要确定是否是故意，但审计师有责任计划和实施审计程序，去检测财务报表是否存在重大错报和误报是否是有意还是无意造成的。审计师必须考虑的两种类型的错误陈述：虚假陈述而产生的虚假财务报告和错误陈述而产生的资产挪用。1、虚假财务报告是故意虚报或遗漏金额或欺骗财务报表使用者，使财务报表在所有重大方面，都遵照公认的会计原则，进那而致使财务报表在审查时通过。虚假财务报告可能要完成以下：（1）操纵、伪造、变更会计记录或编制财务报表的文件（2）虚假陈述或故意遗漏主要事件、财务报表信息或其他重要信息（3）故意误用会计原则披露有关金额，分类等虚假财务报告不一定是一个宏伟的计划或阴谋的结果。这可能是管理层为了进行某项测试而做的重大错报，例如，为了遵循会计规则而作得一个积极的而不是站不住脚的解释，或作为临时过渡性的财务报表，在后期得到纠正后，有望改善经营业绩。2、挪用或盗窃实体资产致使虚报财务报表，审计师在遵循美国通用会计准则前提下，未能发现这一现象。挪用的资产可以通过各种方式完成，包括贪污收据，窃取资产，捏造一个实体来支付商品或服务尚未收到。挪用的资产可能会伴随着虚假或误导性的纪录，也可能绕过监管措施。当以下的三个条件存在时，一般都存在舞弊行为。第一，管理人员或其他雇员有动力或压力下，这会促使他们舞弊；第二，控制力不足或管理力度不大的企业，往往会提供一个良好舞弊环境；第三，有关人士能够合理化犯有欺诈行为。有些人持有这样一种价值观：他们或明知却还去舞弊。然而，即使是一些诚实的人也可以受其身边的环境或压力的影响而进行舞弊。越大的激励或压力，越有可能使一个人做出舞弊行为。管理者具有独特的优势，容易进行舞弊行为，因为他们经常是有权利直接或间接地操纵会计记录和财务信息。如果舞弊性财务报告被管理层的控制所覆盖，则可能会被有效地运作。管理者既可以直接雇员进行舞弊或要求他们帮助进行舞弊。此外，在合并财务报表时，管理者更容易利用职务之便进行舞弊。管理人员也可能运用不可预知的方式进行舞弊。管理人员往往运用以下的手段进行舞弊：（1）虚构账目，尤其是那些被记录接近一个会计期间的；（2）故意运用假设，并用账户余额的判断来估计；（