【作者】 孙乃玮；

【导师】 张苏彤；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 经济法学， 2008， 硕士

【副题名】基于反舞弊的视角

【摘要】 自2002年起算,萨班斯法面世已逾五年。这五年中,中国学者对萨班斯法进行了大量的研究。但对究竟如何评价萨班斯法和如何借鉴萨班斯法两个问题并未达成一致。究其原因,是学者通常对萨班斯法涉及的个别问题进行论述,未能用一以贯之的视角,对萨班斯法进行系统化的研究和评价。因此,本文使用归纳分析和统计分析的方法尝试总结了萨班斯法的主要立法目的——预防和发现财务舞弊,并以此为视角,分析了萨班斯法为实现这一目的对证券发行公司、会计师事务所和政府提出的新要求。在此基础上本文使用了经济法、刑法和行政法的基本观点以及会计与审计的相关知识,对萨班斯法进行了评价,并使用比较分析的方法指出了我国目前立法存在的不足和改进的方向。本文共分为五章。第一章从立法背景,立法目的条款和法律条文统计分析三个角度论证了以反舞弊为视角对萨班斯法进行研究的理由和意义。第二章分析了萨班斯法在反舞弊方面对证券发行公司的要求——签署内部控制报告和提高管理人员刑事责任,并结合会计税法和刑法论证了在我国要求上市公司签署内部控制报告的可行性和提高管理人员刑事责任的必要性。第三章分析了萨班斯法在反舞弊方面对会计师事务所的要求——提高审计独立性,论证了我国为了借鉴萨班斯法,在明确独立性主体,禁止不相容业务,实施审计轮换和发挥审计委员会作用四个方面应该采取的具体改革措施。第四章分析了萨班斯法在反舞弊方面对政府和公务组织的要求——与职业组织的分工,按照法定频率财务检查和分配“公平基金”,肯定了我国目前立法在促进政府与职业组织分工方面对萨班斯法的借鉴,分析了在另外两方面暂时不借鉴萨班斯法的原因。第五章为中国借鉴萨班斯法应该进行的反舞弊立法提出了立法名称建议和法律主要内容建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been born for five years from 2002.In these five years,Chinese scholars have done much research work on this subject, but still disagree with each other on how to evaluate and use it for reference. The reason for the bifurcation is scholars always get interested in different parts of the Act,and seldom systematically research and evaluate this act from a special view.My article tries to sum up the main aim of the Act as preventing and detecting financial fraud in induction and statistical method, and from this view,analyzes the claims to security issuers,CPAs and government by the Act for the aim of antifraud.My article uses both the basic view of economic law,administrative law and criminal law and the knowledge of accounting and auditing to appraise Sarbanes-Oxley Act,and tells the shortages and aim for reformation of Chinese legislation.My article can be divided into five parts.The first part proves the reason and sense of the view of antifraud in my analysis from context,article of aim of legislation and other articles of the Act.The second part analyzes the claims to issuers of the Act:signing on the report to assure the effect Of internal control system and the severer criminal responsibility to the officers.This part also demonstrates the feasibility of the first claim and the necessity of the second in Chinese environment of accounting system and law.The third part analyzes the claims to CPAs:a higher level of independence,This part also demonstrates the measures we should take such as defining subject of independence,banning inconsistent operation, rotating the auditor and supervising by audit committee. The fourth part analyzes the claims to government:dividing the work with associations;a set frequency of investigation and running a "Fair Fund".This part praises reform of legislation in China to follow the lead of the first claim and gives reasons for why not follow the latter two ones.The fifth part suggests the name and the main content of the law China should make to prevent and detect financial fraud in security issuers.更多还原