會計師第三人責任問題
——評最高人民法院的幾則司法解釋
1.3萬字 15頁





CPA's Liability to non-client third Party
—— A Commentary on three Pieces of Judicial Interpretation of Supreme People's Court


【內容摘要】自依據(jù)56號解釋判決的德陽案開了驗資不實訴訟的先河以來，最高人民法院先后作出了幾則司法解釋，一致主張注冊會計師應當向公司的交易相對人承擔略加限制的責任……在美國這是由來已久的會計師第三人責任，是一種職業(yè)過失侵權責任，先后出現(xiàn)過三種標準……從比較法的角度來看，最高人民法院的幾則司法解釋，有其見解獨到之處，但是遺憾的是，就注冊會計師法第42條……

關鍵詞： 會計師第三人責任、職業(yè)過失責任、侵權責任、契約的相對性




【Abstract】Since the Deyang case ,decided according to the NO.56 Reply of the Supreme People's Court, triggered the first shoot of litigation for Yanzi Bushi（untrue capital attestation）, the same Court has made at least three pieces of Judicial Interpretation. The same conclusion is that a CPA shall be liable but it is a kind of restricted liability to the party who has concluded a transaction with the corporation whose registered capital is attested by the said CPA.……In USA, that is non-client third party liability of CPA, which has been a source of debate for several decades, a kind of professional negligence liability, and court uses one of the three kinds of standard to determine who can claim the damages from the CPA for negligently preparing financial statements.……From the comparative law point of view ,the three pieces of Judicial Interpretation have deep insight in several points, but it is a great regret that it has not given a reasonable Interpretation about second 42 of the Chinese CPA Act.……




一、引言
二、最高人民法院的三則司法解釋
三、美國普通法上的過失責任
四、會計師第三人責任的由來
五、幾種標準的分析評價
六、幾則司法解釋的評析