全面透视中美会计跨境监管僵局

    （顺便说一句，我很同情那些将资金放在一家启用中国小型会计师事务所的交易经纪商那里的投资者）。

    在美国上市公司会计监管委员会注册公司列表中发现的另一桩有趣的事是毕马威华振（KPMG Huazhen）报告称，它没有发布过审计报告，但在至少一家发行人的审计中担任过关键角色。毕马威香港在美国上市公司会计监管委员会的注册状态显示为发布发行人审计报告。看看毕马威中国客户的审计报告，这些说法是准确的。所有的审计报告都由毕马威香港签署。这种做法带来两个问题。第一，如果毕马威香港是真正发布审计报告者，美国证券交易委员会为什么问责毕马威华振？这个问题的答案可能是毕马威华振做了所有的工作，掌握着美国证券交易委员会想要查看的工作文件。第二个问题是毕马威香港如何能在不是自己承担审计的审计报告上签字？

    由中国内地事务所承担审计工作、香港事务所签署审计报告已是香港的通行做法。在香港上市的大多数红筹股都是这样做的。H股过去也这样做，但现在H股发布的审计报告大多已改由内地关联事务所签字。由于标准税务（Standard Water）IPO失败后香港监管机构无法取得安永（Ernst & Young）的审计工作文件，香港会计师事务所将审计工作外包、只负责签字的做法正在受到抨击。安永的辩解是，审计工作是由中国内地的附属事务所进行的，根据中国法律，它无法公布工作文件。这桩诉讼正在香港法院推进，与美国证券交易委员会起诉会计师事务所一案惊人的相似。

    译者：早稻米

    (By the way, I pity the investor who has money with a broker-dealer who uses a small Chinese accounting firm).

    Another interesting finding in the PCAOB list of registered firms is that KPMG Huazhen reports that it issued no audit reports but played a substantial role in the audit of at least one issuer. KPMG Hong Kong is registered with the PCAOB as issuing reports on issuers. A check of the audit reports of KPMG clients in China showed this to be accurate. KPMG Hong Kong signs all the audit reports. That raises two questions. First, why was KPMG Huazhen charged by the SEC, if KPMG in Hong Kong actually issues the reports? The answer to that question may be that KPMG Huazhen does all the work and has the working papers that the SEC wants to see. That leads to the second question, how does KPMG in Hong Kong sign the audit report if it does not do the audit?

    The signing of audit reports by the Hong Kong firm when the mainland firm does the work is a common practice in Hong Kong. Most of the red chips listed in Hong Kong are done this way. H-shares used to be done the same way, although most now have reports signed by the mainland affiliate. The practice of Hong Kong accountants signing reports when they outsource all the audit work is under attack after Hong Kong regulators were unable to get audit working papers from Ernst & Young on failed IPO Standard Water. Ernst & Young’s defense was that the work was done by its mainland affiliate, which could not release the working papers under Chinese law. That case is working its way through the Hong Kong courts and is virtually identical to the SEC case against the firms.