【作者】 杨书怀；

【导师】 张蕊；

【作者基本信息】 江西财经大学 ， 会计学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 随着市场经济的迅速发展,经济活动日益活跃、经济交易日趋复杂,出现了大量财务欺诈与舞弊、虚假陈述等经济犯罪与经济纠纷。这些案件的审理与判决涉及大量的财务会计、审计专业知识,超出了法官的常识和判断能力,需要借助会计专业人士对涉案的特定财务会计事项进行检验、鉴别和判断,提供专家意见证据作为审理案件的依据。与此同时,为了适应司法改革中鉴定职能的独立化、鉴定机构的中立化和鉴定人资格的职业化,原先由公检法内部开展的司法会计鉴定将逐渐从司法职能中剥离出来,仅保留侦查机关因工作需要而进行的司法会计鉴定,会计鉴定将主要由社会中介机构来承担,成为会计师事务所(注册会计师)一项新兴的业务——法务会计鉴定。随着我国司法体制改革的进一步深入和完善,注册会计师应是法务会计鉴定的主力军,法务会计鉴定已成为会计师事务所一项重要的增值服务业务。在鉴定机构与司法机关分离前,会计鉴定由法院指派或委托内部的司法会计鉴定机构进行,其所作出的鉴定意见当然地具有证据资格,鉴定意见不存在可采性问题,一般在庭审时直接被法官采信。但在鉴定机构与司法机关分离后,由独立的中介机构或人员(会计师事务所及注册会计师)所出具的鉴定意见是否被法官采纳,缺乏科学、合理的判断标准或规则,法官通常根据鉴定机构级别的高低、鉴定人资质、能力的强弱以及鉴定时间的先后来判断选择,往往级别高的鉴定机构比级别低的更可靠、能力强的鉴定人出具的鉴定意见比能力弱的更可信、重新鉴定的意见比原先的意见更优先等。在理论上,研究法务会计鉴定的采信机制,可以丰富司法证据规则,完善证据的取证、举证、质证和认证规则,有助于完善法务会计鉴定制度,推动法务会计鉴定理论的发展。同时,也为其他类型司法鉴定(如知识产权司法鉴定、税务司法鉴定与资产评估司法鉴定等)的相关制度研究提供一个研究范例,丰富人文社科类鉴定的相关理论和制度。在实践上,研究法务会计鉴定的采信机制,可以为法官采纳鉴定意见提供切实有效的指导,从而实现公正裁判,有效提高会计鉴定的科学性和公信力；从广义的角度研究法务会计鉴定的采信机制,有助于提高鉴定意见的采信度,增强社会对法务会计鉴定工作的认同度,更好地体现诉讼的实体公正和程序公正的价值理念。论文从法务会计鉴定的专家证据性质入手,结合证据的属性,分析法务会计鉴定的证据能力和证明力。接下来,以法务会计鉴定采信的机理为基础,研究法务会计鉴定采信机制的内容,将法务会计鉴定的采信作为一个整体系统,分析影响系统功能的各个要素。针对法务会计鉴定采信机制的各要素,结合所指向的证据属性,分别研究其法理、具体内容与制度安排。主要包括法务会计鉴定意见的可采性审查、法务会计鉴定的质证和法务会计鉴定的采纳。在研究方法上,以定性分析法为主,比较研究法和案例分析法为辅。论文以会计、审计理论为出发点,以法学方法论、社会学分工理论和人类认知理论为支撑点,然后从比较法的视野分析两大法系专家证人制度和鉴定人制度的现状、利弊和发展趋势,在剖析法务会计鉴定采信的运作机理的基础上,研究设计法务会计鉴定的采信机制。本文的案例研究以注册会计师从事会计鉴定的案件为主,也包含国外典型的法务会计专家证人案例。案例主要来源于“北大法意”法律实证研究数据支持服务系统。本文的研究目的表现在以下三个方面：(1)建立法务会计鉴定的可采性规则,为法官正确判断法务会计鉴定意见的证据能力提供指导,防止不适格的法务会计鉴定意见进入法庭,扰乱法官对财务会计争议问题的认定,同时这一规则也可以对法官取舍证据加以制衡,防止法官恣意裁量。(2)为当事人及其律师合理质疑法务会计鉴定意见的证据能力与证明力提供正确思路和方向指引,切实提高质证的效率与效果。(3)分析影响事实裁判者(法官或陪审团)采纳法务会计鉴定意见的主要因素,帮助法务会计鉴定人提高专家意见的采信度,引导事实裁判者正确认定事实,裁决诉讼。本文的主要研究结论如下：(1)诉讼主体的不同,是确定采信机制内容的主要依据；诉讼程序的不同,是确定采信机制内容的重要依据。不同诉讼主体的职能不同,在不同诉讼程序阶段,对采信内容的侧重点不同；即使同一主体,对采信内容的要求和力度也不同。法务会计鉴定采信的机理是证据能力与证明力的统一,法务会计鉴定采信的本质是对证据证据能力和证明力的认证。(2)法务会计鉴定的采信是一个由法官对鉴定意见可采性的审查、双方当事人对鉴定意见质证和事实裁判者对鉴定意见的采纳组成的对立统一的过程。三个方面的内容紧密相连,相互影响、相互作用。法务会计鉴定采信机制是这一工作系统各要素相互作用的过程、方式和原理。法务会计鉴定的可采性和采纳紧密相联,可采性是采纳的前提,是整个采信机制的基础,质证是采信机制的核心内容,采纳是采信机制的关键环节。三者在主体、客体和标准等方面的差异是决定法务会计鉴定采信机制内容的主要因素。(3)为了确保法务会计鉴定意见能够作为证据使用,具有可采性,法务会计鉴定意见应遵循以下可采性规则：法务会计鉴定具有必要性；从事法务会计鉴定的人员具备司法部认可的专家证人资格,保持良好的职业道德,未因过错等原因受到公开的警告、批评或谴责；法务会计鉴定的取证过程合法,操作程序规范,依据的财务会计资料真实、合法；依据的法律、法规、制度与现行的法律、法规、制度和公认的会计准则、惯例保持一致,运用的会计审计技术和方法与会计学术界使用的或会计权威出版物记载的原理、方法保持一致；法务会计鉴定的结果符合一定的形式要件。(4)当事人及其律师应从证据能力和证明力两方面质证法务会计鉴定意见,但并不是严格按照先证据能力后证明力的顺序,而是交叉进行的。当事人及其律师应从以下方面质疑法务会计鉴定意见的证据能力：法务会计鉴定人的选任是否合法、品格是否良好、能力是否适格；法务会计鉴定人与委托人之间是否存在利害关系、法务会计鉴定的收费是否合理；作为法务会计鉴定对象的财务会计资料来源是否真实、合法。当事人及其律师应从以下方面质疑法务会计鉴定意见的证明力：法务会计鉴定推理是否严密、论证是否充分；法务会计鉴定过程是否规范；法务会计鉴定意见是否可靠。(5)法官的思维规则以法律真实为认识基础、以司法公正为价值追求；法官的思维方式具有逻辑性和程序性,两者直接决定法务会计鉴定意见的采纳。法官对法务会计鉴定的采纳实质上是对法务会计鉴定意见证明力的判断,本质上是法官自由心证的过程,这一过程受经验法则和逻辑规则的约束,遵循法官特有的思维方式和思维规则。(6)法官在当事人及其律师质证法务会计鉴定意见的基础上,对法务会计鉴定意见的证明力自由裁量。影响法官采纳法务会计鉴定意见的主要因素有：专家证言、所依赖的财务会计资料、专家的专业知识或经验三者之间是否具有内在的逻辑关系；在做出法务会计鉴定意见过程中所使用的会计审计理论、技术与方法是否恰当；法务会计鉴定意见与其他证据是否相辅相成,存在合理的逻辑关系；质证对法官判断法务会计鉴定意见证明力的影响；法官是否与法务会计鉴定人之间存在长期的合作关系。(7)陪审员采纳证据的模式是故事重构。陪审员对证据的采纳不单纯取决于在审判中获得的信息,对故事形成所必要的其他相关信息往往起到决定性的作用。影响陪审员采纳法务会计鉴定的主要因素有：法务会计鉴定人的可信度,具体包括法务会计鉴定人的行为举止、法务会计鉴定人的语言表达、法务会计鉴定人的利益与动机；法务会计鉴定意见的可信性,具体包括法务会计鉴定意见的论证是否充分、法务会计鉴定意见的逻辑推理是否严密、法务会计鉴定意见的表述是否清晰。(8)通过对无可采信、未采信和采信三个典型案例的分析,本文认为,当前我国法务会计鉴定的采信普遍存在以下突出问题：法务会计鉴定缺乏程序理性,表现为法务会计鉴定委托不合法或无必要；作为法务会计鉴定对象的财务会计资料不可靠或不完整；法务会计鉴定人很少出庭作证接受质询,不利于专家意见的采信。这些问题的解决有待于法务会计鉴定采信机制的有效实施和相关保障措施和制度的建立。本文的创新体现在以下三个方面：(1)从法务会计鉴定采信的运作机理入手,系统地构建了广义的法务会计鉴定的采信机制。首次提出法务会计鉴定的采信是一项系统工程,是由相互作用和相互依赖的基于不同目的、不同功能的三类诉讼主体对专家证据的评判而组成的有机整体。法务会计鉴定采信机制是一个体现诉讼实体公正和程序公正价值理念的广义采信系统工程。法务会计鉴定的可采性和采纳紧密相联,可采性是采纳的前提,是整个采信机制的基础,质证是采信机制的核心内容,采纳是采信机制的关键环节。(2)借鉴英美国家专家证据的可采性规则,结合法务会计鉴定的性质和特征,构建了法务会计鉴定意见的可采性规则,为法官正确判断法务会计鉴定意见的证据能力提供了指引和帮助。(3)对证据的采信和事实的认定由事实裁判者自由裁量,自由心证的论证过程缺乏透明度,理论上,采信的内心过程成为研究盲点。本文在剖析法官思维方式与规则和分析陪审员采纳证据模式的基础上,分别得出影响法官和陪审员采纳法务会计鉴定专家意见的主要因素,这些因素有助于法务会计鉴定人提高专家意见的采信度,引导事实裁判者正确认定事实,裁决诉讼。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the rapid development of market economy, the economic activities become active increasingly, the economic transactions become more and more complex, appeare a large number of financial fraud, false statements and other economic crime and disputes. The trail and judgment of these cases involve a large number of financial accounting and auditing expertise, all of thses are beyond the common sense and ability of judge. It needs accounting professionals to inspect, identificate and judge the specific financial and accounting involved, then issue the expert opinion evidence serve as the trial case basis. At the same time, in order to meet the independence of the functions of identification, the neutral of identification institutions and the professional of identification qualification in judicial reform, judicial accounting identification undertake by the organization of public security, procuratorial and court previously be spun off gradually from the judicial functions. Judicial accounting identification only retains in investigation organs because of its need of work. Accounting identification be borne by the social intermediary organizations mainly and will become the new business of certified public accountants(CPA)--forensic accounting identification. With the further development and perfection of our judicial system reform the CPA is the main force of forensic accounting identification and forensic accounting identification will become public accounting firm an important value-added services business.Before the identification institutions separate from the judicial organization,accounting identification appointed or consigned by judicial accounting identificationg of the court internal, its has qualifications of course, admissibility of expert opinion there is no problem. Generally in the trial, it direct adopts by the judge. However, after the identification institutions separate from the judicial organization, there are lack of scientific and rational criteria or rules of identification opinion issued by the independent agency or personnel (accounting firms and certified public accountants). Judges usually bases on hight and low of identification institutions, expert qualifications, ability and sequencing order to choice the conclusion, that is, the high level of accreditation institutions are more reliable than the lower level, the stronger ability institutions are more credible than the lower, the opinion of re-identification are priority to the original and so on.In theory, research on adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification can enrich the judicial rules of evidence, improve adduce, cross examination and certification rules of evidence, help to perfect the forensic accounting identification system,and promote development the theory of forensic accounting identification. At the same time, It provides study examples for relative system of other types judicial identification (such as intellectual property judicial identification, tax judicial identification forensic and judicial identification of assets evaluation, etc.) and enriches theory and system of humanities and social science identification. In practice, research on adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification can provide effective guidance of whether to adopt the opinion of forensic accounting identification. So as to achieve a just judge and improve the scientific and credibility of judicial identification effectively.Research on adopting mechanism of forensic accountants identification in broad perspective can improve the reliability of expert opinion, strengthen degree of social recognition of forensic accounting identification, and embody the value concept of entity and procedural justice and fairness.The paper analyses the evidence ability and proof capability of forensic accounting identification bases on the nature of expert evidence of forensic accounting identification, combines the properties of the evidence. Next, the paper researches the contents of adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification bases on adopting mechanism and theory of forensic accounting identification. Then regards the adopting of forensic accounting identification as a whole system, analyses the various elements of system function. According to the elements of adopting mechanism and theory of forensic accounting identification, combins with the evidence property which pointed to, researches the jurisprudence, specific contents and system arrangements respectively. It includs the admissibility censor of opinion of forensic accounting identification, cross-examination of forensic accounting identification and adopting of forensic accounting identification.In research methods, the paper uses qualitative analysis mainly and uses comparative analysis and case studies assistantly. The paper serves accounting and auditing theory as the starting point, legal methodology, sociological division of labor theory and the theory of human cognition as strong point, and then from the perspective of comparative law, analyses the present situation, advantages and disadvantages and development trend of expert witness and judicial identificater system of two legal system. Then designs the adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification bases on analysis of operation mechanism and theory. The case study of this paper bases on the case of accounting identifications carry out by certified public accountant mainly, also include the typical foreign forensic accounting expert witness cases. The cases come mainly from Data Support System of Legal Empirical Research of "peking university Lawyeee".The purpose of this paper in the following three aspects:(1) Establishment of the admissibility rules of forensic accountants identification can provided guidence for the judges to determine evidence ability of opinion of forensic accounting identification rightly, and avoid unqualified opinion of forensic accounting identification go into the court and disrupt the judges on the disputed financial accounting issues, while the rules also balance the judge to choose evidence, and prevent the arbitrary discretion of judges.(2) The paper provides accurate thoughts and direction guidence for the parties and their lawyers to challenge the evidence ability and proof capability of forensic accounting identification, and improves the efficiency and effectiveness of cross-examination effectively.(3) Analysis of the main factors which influences the facts judge (judge or jury) adopt expert opinion, which can help forensic accounting identificater to improve the reliability of expert opinions, and guide the facts judge to assert facts and adjudicate lawsuit correctly.The main conclusions of the paper are as follows:(1)The difference of litigation subject is main foundation of determining the contents of adopting mechanism, and the difference of litigation proceedings is important foundation of determining the contents of adopting mechanism. The different litigation subject have different functions. The contents of adoptin take a different focus at different stages of litigation proceedings. Even if the same subject, the requirements and strength of contents of adopting are also different. The adopting mechanism and theory of forensic accounting identification is the unification of evidence ability and proof capability. The nature of adopting of forensic accounting identification is attestation of evidence ability and proof capability.(2) The adopting of forensic accounting identification is an oxymoron process of the admissibility censor of opinion of forensic accounting identification, cross-examination of forensic accounting identification and adopting of forensic accounting identification.The Three aspects are linked closely, influenced and interacted each other. The adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification are interactive processes, methods and principles of elements of the work systems.The admissibility of forensic accounting is related to adopting closely. The admisssibility is the premise of adopting,and is the basis of the whole adopting mechanism. The cross-examination is core content of the adopting mechanism, and adopting is the key piont of adopting mechanism.The difference in the subject, object and standards of three facts are the main factors which determines the content of adopting mechanism of forensic accounting.(3) In order to ensure opinion of forensic accounting identification can be used as evidence, and be admissibility, expert opinions of forensic accounting should obey the rules of admissibility as follows:The necessity of forensic accounting identification. Forensic accounting identificater have the qualifications of expert witness which recognized by the Ministry of Justice, and have good work ethic, and have not subject to warning, criticism or condemnation publicly because of errors in work. The process of collect evidence of forensic accounting identification is legitimate, operational procedure is normative, financial and accounting information based on is true and legitimate. The laws, rules and systems depend on is keep consistant with and existing laws, rules, systems and generally accepted accounting principles and practices. The accounting and auditing techniques and methods which used is consistent with the principles and methods which accounting academic circles used or authority publications recorded. The results of forensic accounting identification accord with formal requirements.(4) Ability of The parties and their lawyers should cross-examinate both evidence ability and proof capability of forensic accounting expert opinion. However, it does not accord to the order of evidence ability first and proof capability second, also carries out crossly. The parties and their lawyers should question the evidence ability of expert opinions as follows:Whethe the selection of forensic accounting expert is legality and integrity is good, and capability is suitable. Whethe forensic accounting expert is interest with their client, and is interest, and fees of forensic accounting identification are reasonable. As the object of forensic accountants identification financial accounting information is true and legal. The parties and their lawyers should question the proof capability of expert opinions as follows:Whethe the reason of forensic accounting identification is tight, the demonstration is adequacy. Whether the process of forensic accounting identification is normative. Whether forensic accounting expert opinion is reliable.(5) Legal true is acquaintance basis of rules thought of judge, and judicial justice is value pursue. The way of judge thinking mode had logical and procedural, which determine the forensic accounting expert opinion of the adoption directly. The adoption of forensic accounting identification is to judge the proof capability of forensic accounting identification, which is a process of free heart-proof essentially. This process is affected by experience regulations and obeys the unique thinking mode and thinking rules of judges.(6) The parties and their lawyers discreted the proof capability of expert opinion freely, which base on cross-examine the expert opinion of forensic accounting identification. The major factors which influence the judge to adopt expert opinion as follows. Expert testimony, financial and accounting information, expert knowledge or experience had inherent logic relations. The accounting and auditing theories, techniques and methods used in forensic accounting identification are appropriate. The opinion of forensic accounting identification and other evidence are complementary, and their have reasonable and logical relations. Cross-examination influences the proof capability of forensic accounting expert opinion. Whether judge and forensic accounting expert have long-term partnership.(7) The model of adopting the evidence of jury is story reconstruction. The adopting the evidence of jury do not only simply dependent on information obtained in the trial, but also the other relevant information, which is relative and necessary to shape the story, and their play a decisive role. The major factors which influenced the jury to adopt expert opinion as follows. The credibility of forensic accounting expert, including the behavior of forensic accounting expert, the language of forensic accounting expert, the interests and motivation of forensic accounting expert. The credibility of forensic accounting expert opinion, including whethe the argument of forensic accounting expert opinion is adequacy, whethe the logical reasoning of forensic accounting expert opinion is strict, whethe the statement of forensic accounting expert opinion is clear.(8) By no-admissibility, no-adoptability and adoptability three typical cases, this paper believes that Chinese current adopting of forensic accounting identification exite outstanding problems as follows. Forensic accounting identifications lack of procedural rationality, which embody that the commission is illegal and unnecessary. The financial accounting information which served as the object of forensic accounting identification is unreliable and incomplete. Forensic accounting experts do not testify in court and accepte query. The solution of these problems rely on putting the adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification into effect and building up relative guarantee measures and systems.The innovation of this paper are as following three areas.(1)The paper built up the general adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification bases on operation mechanism and theory of forensic accounting identification. The paper points out that adopting of forensic accounting identification is a systematic project firstly. It is an organic whole made up of three judicail subjects of different purposes and different functions which evaluate and judge expert evidence. The adopting mechanism of forensic accounting identification is a general systematic project which embody the value concept of entity and procedural justice and fairness. The admisssibility is the premise of adopting,and is the basis of the whole adopting mechanism. The cross-examination is core content of the adopting mechanism, and adopting is the key piont of adopting mechanism.(2) The paper references English and American admissibility rules of expert evidence and combines with the nature and characteristics of forensic accountants identification, then builds up the admissibility rules of opinion of forensic accounting identification, which provide guidance and help for judge to evaluate the evidence ability of expert opinion of forensic accounting identification.(3) The Adoption evidence and asseting facts which sentenced by judge freely. However, demonstration procedures of free heart-proof lack of transparency, in theory, the inner process of adopting becmes blind point of research. This paper finds the main factors which influence judge and jury to adopt expert opinion of forensic accounting identification respectively based on disserting of thinking mode and rules of judge and analysing adopting model of jury. These factors contribute to improve degree of adopting forensic accounting identification expert opinion, guide the judges of fact to asset the facts and sentence the lawsuit.更多还原