Financial Statement and Auditing Errors Associated with the Lawsuits Against Public Accountants in Australia and Singapore

IF 0.1 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE
P. Rajapakse, J. Gardner
{"title":"Financial Statement and Auditing Errors Associated with the Lawsuits Against Public Accountants in Australia and Singapore","authors":"P. Rajapakse, J. Gardner","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2426453","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper considers the legal liability regime for financial advisors, namely certified public accountants and auditors, in Singapore and Australia. Examination of the comparative aspects in which lawsuits against financial advisors are commenced provided an analysis of the legal and commercial environment and the regulatory regimes of the two jurisdictions considered. Information was collected from a wide range of sources including articles, texts, government reports and professional body publications. The main basis of the paper however, was a detailed analysis of a number of court cases in Singapore and Australia. A qualitative, legal case-study method was used to meet the following objectives: (i) description of background information for the lawsuit, (ii) explanation of information collected, and (iii) analysis of the information in the context of the research topic. After a wide search on a number of different legal databases in Australia and Singapore, eleven and eight relevant cases were chosen from each jurisdiction respectively. The case analysis was conducted to develop an understanding of the complex reasons that initiated the litigation process against the professional accountant or auditor where many variables are not quantifiable and actual causes for legal action significantly vary from one case to the other. These cases were evaluated to consider a range of issues including the court jurisdiction, main issues contributing to the litigation, types of alleged errors and findings of liability. Consequently it appeared that even though the two countries have similar regulatory regimes for financial advisors, there were a surprising range of differences in the legal and commercial environment in which claims were brought by parties. These differences highlighted the positive and negative aspects of the varying approaches and allowed the paper to make a range of recommendations for Australia, Singapore and the accounting profession at large. These recommendations include a strict approach to legal liability for advisors, enacting measures to limit the liability of advisors and the requirement and importance of good corporate governance approaches.","PeriodicalId":51955,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Finance and Accounting","volume":"96 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law Finance and Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2426453","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper considers the legal liability regime for financial advisors, namely certified public accountants and auditors, in Singapore and Australia. Examination of the comparative aspects in which lawsuits against financial advisors are commenced provided an analysis of the legal and commercial environment and the regulatory regimes of the two jurisdictions considered. Information was collected from a wide range of sources including articles, texts, government reports and professional body publications. The main basis of the paper however, was a detailed analysis of a number of court cases in Singapore and Australia. A qualitative, legal case-study method was used to meet the following objectives: (i) description of background information for the lawsuit, (ii) explanation of information collected, and (iii) analysis of the information in the context of the research topic. After a wide search on a number of different legal databases in Australia and Singapore, eleven and eight relevant cases were chosen from each jurisdiction respectively. The case analysis was conducted to develop an understanding of the complex reasons that initiated the litigation process against the professional accountant or auditor where many variables are not quantifiable and actual causes for legal action significantly vary from one case to the other. These cases were evaluated to consider a range of issues including the court jurisdiction, main issues contributing to the litigation, types of alleged errors and findings of liability. Consequently it appeared that even though the two countries have similar regulatory regimes for financial advisors, there were a surprising range of differences in the legal and commercial environment in which claims were brought by parties. These differences highlighted the positive and negative aspects of the varying approaches and allowed the paper to make a range of recommendations for Australia, Singapore and the accounting profession at large. These recommendations include a strict approach to legal liability for advisors, enacting measures to limit the liability of advisors and the requirement and importance of good corporate governance approaches.
与澳大利亚和新加坡会计师诉讼相关的财务报表和审计错误
本文考虑财务顾问的法律责任制度,即注册会计师和审计师,在新加坡和澳大利亚。通过研究对财务顾问提起诉讼的比较方面,可以分析所考虑的两个司法管辖区的法律和商业环境以及监管制度。收集的资料来源广泛,包括文章、文本、政府报告和专业团体出版物。然而,本文的主要基础是对新加坡和澳大利亚的一些法庭案件的详细分析。采用定性的法律案例研究方法来实现以下目标:(i)描述诉讼的背景信息,(ii)解释收集到的信息,(iii)在研究主题的背景下分析信息。在广泛查阅澳大利亚和新加坡的不同法律数据库后,我们分别从两个司法管辖区选择了11个和8个相关案件。案例分析是为了了解发起针对专业会计师或审计师的诉讼过程的复杂原因,其中许多变量是不可量化的,法律诉讼的实际原因因案件而异。对这些案件进行了评价,以考虑一系列问题,包括法院管辖权、导致诉讼的主要问题、所指控的错误类型和责任认定。因此,尽管这两个国家对财务顾问有类似的管理制度,但当事方提出索赔时所处的法律和商业环境却有着惊人的差异。这些差异突出了不同方法的积极和消极方面,并使本文能够为澳大利亚,新加坡和整个会计行业提出一系列建议。这些建议包括严格处理顾问的法律责任,颁布限制顾问责任的措施,以及良好公司治理办法的要求和重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信