对财务报表舞弊的思考外文翻译

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 auditors 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 auditors 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:1Manipulation, falsification, or alteration of accounting records or supporting documents from which financial statements are prepared2Misrepresentation in or intentional omission from the financial statements of events, transactions, or other significant information3Intentional 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 entitys 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 auditors 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，舞弊是一种成心的欺诈行为，对财务报表进行了虚假的描述。然而是否是成心行为往往难以确定，特别是在涉及会计估计和会计原那么的适用问题时。例如：不合理的会计估计可能是无意的或可能是成心虚报财务报表。虽然审计的目的不是要确定是否是成心，但审计师有责任方案和实施审计程序，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、虚假财务报告是成心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那么，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虚假陈述或成心遗漏主要事件、财务报表信息或其他重要信息3成心误用会计原那么披露有关金额，分类等虚假财务报告不一定是一个宏伟的方案或阴谋的结果。这可能是管理层为了进行某项测试而做的重大错报，例如，为了遵循会计规那么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那么前提下，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效劳尚未收到。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，控制力缺乏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，即使是一些老实的人也可以受其身边的环境或压力的影响而进行舞弊。越大的鼓励或压力，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，那么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成心运用假设，并用账户余额的判断来估计；3改变记录和有关重大或异常交易的条款。通常情况下，管理人员和员工进行舞弊，他们往往会采取措施，掩盖其行为，逃过该组织内部审计师和外部审计师的审计。他们常通过伪造文件或歪曲证据而不予回应信息查询。例如，管理人员可能改变装运单据进行舞弊，雇员通过伪造电子签名或批文来掩盖挪用现金的行为。审计人员很难通过审计程序来发现这些问题，此外，一个侧面协议，管理人员或第三人不透露的话审计人员可能无法发现这些文件的存在。舞弊也可通过管理层，雇员或第三方之间的勾结来进行。合谋可能导致审计师认为提供的证据是有说服力，事实上这些是假的。例如，通过合谋，虚假的证据说明，管里已有效运作，或者一致的解释可能误导审计师。又例如，审计人员可能会遭遇来自管理层和第三方串通，而得到在一个虚假的消息。尽管舞弊通常是隐蔽的和管理者的意图往往是难以确定的，但审计师可以通过某些存在的条件判断是否存在舞弊。例如，一个重要的合同可能会丧失，但企业一定会备有明细账可，或一个分析程序的执行在审计过程中不得与预期的结果一致。这些条件的结果也许并不全是舞弊。文件或合同可能已丧失；明细分类账可能是出于其控制的帐户，因为一个无意的会计错误而导致平衡；不理想的解析关系可能是由于根本经济因素意想不到的变化导致的。甚至涉嫌舞弊的财务报告可能并不总是可靠的，因为一个员工或第三人可能被误或可能出于对未知的原因而作出虚假的报告。如前面所述的，审计师有责任方案和实施审计程序，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。然而，审计师是无法做出绝对保证的，因此即使是在筹划和进行适当的审计程序，也可能无法检测到全部由由舞弊造成的重大错误陈述。重大错报可能无法检测到，因为审计证据的性质或舞弊行为的特点，正如上面所述的，审计师审核所依靠的审计证据，似乎是有效的，事实上是虚假的。此外，为检测舞弊的审核程序，有可能是无效的。二审计师保持职业疑心的重要性应有的职业谨慎要求审计师保持专业的疑心SAS第1号审计标准。由于舞弊的特点，审计人员的职业疑心锻炼很重要，特别当遇到由舞弊引起重大错报风险时。职业疑心是一种态度，其中包括一个质疑的心态和审计证据时的严格评估。审计人员应该保持职业疑心态度，因为因舞弊引起的重大错报可能存在，无论该公司过去时怎么样的或审计师的经验如何丰富。此外，审计师要以专业的疑心态度，判断得到的资料和证据材料是否说明舞弊已经发生。审计师在收集和评价证据时要保持职业疑心态度，审计师不应该满足管理人员提供的证据，因为这些是低于说服力的。三舞弊风险因素由于舞弊通常是隐蔽的，所以重大错报难以发觉到。然而，审计人员可以识别一些事件或情况，这些是否存在因鼓励/压力或有一个良好的时机或认为舞弊合理的状况而进行舞弊。这样的事件或条件被称为“舞弊风险因素，舞弊风险因素的存在并不一定意味着存在会出现舞弊行为，然而，他们的存在往往增加舞弊行为出现的概率。在获取有关单位及其环境的信息时，审计人员应当考虑所收集的资料显示：是否存在一个或多个舞弊风险因素。审计人员应该使用专业判断确定是否存在危险因素，应考虑是否存在因舞弊引起的重大错报风险。当存在舞弊时，可以根据以下三个条件来确定舞弊风险因素。首先，因鼓励或压力而进行舞弊；其次，环境提供了一个时机，诱使舞弊行为的发生。最后，认为舞弊行为合理化的思想不断滋生。风险因素涉及范围十分广泛，他们只是些例子，审计人员可以考虑额外或不同的风险因素。所有这些例子并非囊括所有相关情况，一些例子可能会综合的出现在不同规模和不同所有制性质的企业。此外，提供的风险因素的例子并不能够全面地反映其重要性或发生的频率。四应对重大错报风险的总体反响如何反响由于舞弊引起的重大错报风险，审计师是按以下步骤进行的：1、作业人员和监督。参与审计的重要职责人员的知识、技能和能力应该和审计师对因舞弊引起的重大错报风险所做出的评估相符合。例如，审计人员在对一家IT企业进行审计时，可以聘请有相关技术的专家，或通过指定更多的审计人员参与审计。此外，监管程度应反映由舞弊引起的重大错报风险。2、会计原那么。审计人员应该考虑管理层所选用的重要会计原那么，特别是那些与主观测量和复杂的交易有关的。在这方面，审计师可以关注以这些会计原那么和政策为标准，所编制的财务报表。审计师应该考虑：企业管理者在选择这些会计原那么时，是否已经在准备进行财务舞弊了。出处：American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.Consideration Of Fraud in a Financial Statement AuditJ. Accounting Research Manager, 2002,5:2430.