下载文档原格式
财务报告内部控制信息披露：美国的经验与借鉴作者：邵志高张琴来源：《会计之友》2009年第13期【摘要】文章通过对美国财务报告内部控制信息披露规则演变的研究发现，美国财务报告内部控制信息披露的实施并不是一帆风顺，一些重要规则也是几经改变。
美国的经验表明，尽管财务报告内部控制信息披露是大势所趋，但是在我国强制财务报告内部控制信息披露决不可操之过急。
【关键词】美国财务报告内部控制；信息披露；启示安然等公司的会计丑闻促使美国国会痛下决心，最终通过了旨在打击上市公司会计舞弊，保障财务报告质量的《萨班斯法案》。
《萨班斯法案》最重要的内容之一就是强制要求符合批报规则的公司对外披露内部控制信息。
尽管1991年美国联邦存款保险改进法（FCICIA）曾经要求资产超过5亿美元的金融公司披露内部控制信息，但是像《萨班斯法案》这样要求如此大范围的公司公开披露内部控制信息在美国历史尚属首次。
《萨班斯法案》的影响迅速遍及整个世界。
依据欧洲公司治理研究所（european corporate governance institute）的调查，截至2004年末，已有26个欧洲国家颁布治理法或提议依照《萨班斯法案》强制公司披露内部控制信息。
日本国会也于2007年颁布金融工具交易法（financial instruments and exchange law），规定所有上市公司在2008年4月1日之后的年报中提供内部控制评估报告。
上市公司披露内部控制信息已经是大势所趋。
《萨班斯法案》以及美国财务报告内部控制（Internal Control overFinancial Reporting，后文简称ICFR）信息披露相关规则对我国内部控制信息披露政策的制定具有重要借鉴意义。
国内已有学者开始这方面的研究。
但这些文献主要集中于2002年《萨班斯法案》和2003年美国证券监督委员会（后文简称SEC）最终规则的研究，而在此之后美国内部控制新条款又不断推出，以前的部分规则也发生了较大改变。
本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译外文题目Committee of sponsoring organizationsof the treadway Commission 外文出处Enterprise risk management外文作者Committee of sponsoring organizations 原文：Committee of sponsoring organizations of the treadway commission Organizational overviewCOSO was formed in 1985 to sponsor the National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting (the Treadway Commission). The Treadway Commission was originally jointly sponsored and funded by five main professional accounting associations and institutes headquartered in the United States: the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), American Accounting Association (AAA), Financial Executives International (FEI), Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) and the Institute of Management Accountants(IMA). The Treadway Commission recommended that the organizations sponsoring the Commission work together to develop integrated guidance on internal control. These five organizations formed what is now called the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.The original chairman of the Treadway Commission was James C. Treadway, Jr., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Paine Webber Incorporated and a former Commissioner of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Hence, the popular name "Treadway Commission". Currently, David L. Landsittel replaced Larry E. Rittenberg as the COSO Chairman.HistoryDue to questionable corporate political campaign finance practices and foreigncorrupt practices in the mid -1970s, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the U.S. Congress enacted campaign finance law reforms and the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act(FCPA) which criminalized transnational bribery and required companies to implement internal control programs. In response, the Treadway Commission, a private-sector initiative, was formed in 1985 to inspect, analyze, and make recommendations on fraudulent corporate financial reporting.The Treadway Commission studied the financial information reporting system over the period from October 1985 to September 1987 and issued a report of findings and recommendations in October 1987 titled Report of the National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting. As a result of this initial report, the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) was formed and it retained Coopers & Lybrand, a major CPA firm, to study the issues and author a report regarding an integrated framework of internal control.In September 1992, the four volume report entitled Internal Control— Integrated Framework was released by COSO and later re-published with minor amendments in 1994. This report presented a common definition of internal control and provided a framework against which internal control systems may be assessed and improved. This report is one standard that U.S. companies use to evaluate their compliance with FCPA. According to a poll by CFO Magazine released in 2006, 82% of respondents claimed t hey used COSO’s framework for internal controls. Other frameworks used by respondents included COBIT, AS2 (Auditing Standard No. 2, PCAOB), and SAS 55/78 (AICPA).Internal control - integrated frameworkKey concepts of the COSO frameworkThe COSO framework involves several key concepts:∙Internal control is a process. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself.∙Internal control is affected by people. It’s not merely policy, manuals, and forms, but people at every level of an organization.∙Internal control can be expected to provide only reasonable assurance, not absolute assurance, to an entity’s management and board.Internal control is geared to the achievement of objectives in one or more separate but overlapping categories.Use of the capability maturity modelThe capabilities of an organization in relation to the COSO model could be assessed based on universal states or plateaus that organizations typically target. The descriptions are incremental.The capability descriptions are based on evolution toward generally recognized best practices. Each organization determines which level of "maturity" would be the most appropriate in support of its business needs, priorities and availability of resources. A rating system of “0” to “5” is used. A rating of “5” does not necessarily mean “goodness”, but rather, maturity of capability. The ideal maturity rating for any area is dependent on the needs of the organization. The different and progressive plateaus are: 0 Non-existent when:The organization lacks procedures to monitor the effectiveness of internal controls. Management internal control reporting methods are absent. There is a general unawareness of IT operational security and internal control assurance. Management and employees have an overall lack of awareness of internal controls.1 Initial/Ad Hoc when:Management recognizes the need for regular IT management and control assurance. Individual expertise in assessing internal control adequacy is applied on an ad hoc basis. IT management has not formally assigned responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of internal controls. IT internal control assessments are conducted as part of traditional financial audits, with methodologies and skill sets that do not reflect the needs of the information services function.2 Repeatable but Intuitive when:The organization uses informal control reports to initiate corrective action initiatives. Internal control assessment is dependent on the skill sets of key individuals. The organization has an increased awareness of internal control monitoring. Information service management performs monitoring over the effectiveness of what it believes are critical internal controls on a regular basis. Methodologies and tools formonitoring internal controls are starting to be used, but not based on a plan. Risk factors specific to the IT environment are identified based on the skills of individuals.3 Defined when:Management supports and institutes internal control monitoring. Policies and procedures are developed for assessing and reporting on internal control monitoring activities. An education and training program for internal control monitoring is defined. A process is defined for self-assessments and internal control assurance reviews, with roles for responsible business and IT managers. Tools are being utilized but are not necessarily integrated into all processes. IT process risk assessment policies are being used within control frameworks developed specifically for the IT organization. Process-specific risks and mitigation policies are defined.4 Managed and Measurable when:Management implements a framework for IT internal control monitoring. The organization establishes tolerance levels for the internal control monitoring process. Tools are implemented to standardize assessments and automatically detect control exceptions. A formal IT internal control function is established, with specialized and certified professionals utilizing a formal control framework endorsed by senior management. Skilled IT staff members are routinely participating in internal control assessments. A metrics knowledge base for historical information on internal control monitoring is established. Peer reviews for internal control monitoring are established.5 Optimized when:Management establishes an organization wide continuous improvement program that takes into account lessons learned and industry best practices for internal control monitoring and reporting. The organization uses integrated and updated tools, where appropriate, that allow effective assessment of critical IT controls and rapid detection of IT control monitoring incidents. Knowledge sharing specific to the information services function is formally implemented. Benchmarking against industry standards and good practices is formalized.Definition of internal control and framework objectivesThe COSO framework defines internal control as a process, effected by an entity’sboard of directors, management and other personnel, designed to provide "reasonable assurance" regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories: ∙Effectiveness and efficiency of operations∙Reliability of financial reporting∙Compliance with applicable laws and regulationsThe five framework componentsThe COSO internal control framework consists of five interrelated components derived from the way management runs a business. According to COSO, these components provide an effective framework for describing and analyzing the internal control system implemented in an organization as required by financial regulations (see Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 240 15d-15). The five components are the following:Control environment:The control environment sets the tone of an organization, influencing the control consciousness of its people. It is the foundation for all other components of internal control, providing discipline and structure. Control environment factors include the integrity, ethical values, management's operating style, delegation of authority systems, as well as the processes for managing and developing people in the organization.Risk assessment:Every entity faces a variety of risks from external and internal sources that must be assessed. A precondition to risk assessment is establishment of objectives and thus risk assessment is the identification and analysis of relevant risks to the achievement of assigned objectives. Risk assessment is a prerequisite for determining how the risks should be managed.Control activities: Control activities are the policies and procedures that help ensure management directives are carried out. They help ensure that necessary actions are taken to address the risks that may hinder the achievement of the entity's objectives. Control activities occur throughout the organization, at all levels and in all functions. They include a range of activities as diverse as approvals, authorizations, verifications, reconciliations, reviews of operating performance, security of assets and segregation of duties.Information and communication:Information systems play a key role in internal control systems as they produce reports, including operational, financial and compliance-related information, that make it possible to run and control the business. In a broader sense, effective communication must ensure information flows down, across and up the organization. For example, formalized procedures exist for people to report suspected fraud. Effective communication should also be ensured with external parties, such as customers, suppliers, regulators and shareholders about related policy positions.Monitoring: Internal control systems need to be monitored—a process that assesses the quality of the system's performance over time. This is accomplished through ongoing monitoring activities or separate evaluations. Internal control deficiencies detected through these monitoring activities should be reported upstream and corrective actions should be taken to ensure continuous improvement of the system. LimitationsInternal control involves human action, which introduces the possibility of errors in processing or judgment. Internal control can also be overridden by collusion among employees (see separation of duties) or coercion by top management.CFO magazine reported that companies are struggling to apply the complex model provided by COSO. “One of the biggest problems: limiting internal audits to one of the three key objectives of the framework. In the COSO model, those objectives are applied to five key components (monitoring, information and communication, control activities, risk assessment, and control environment). Given the number of possible matrices, it's not surprising that the number of audits can get out of hand.” CFO magazine continued by stating, that many organization are creating their own risk-and-control matrix by taking the COSO model and altering it to focus on the components that relate directly to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.Source：Enterprise risk management,2004.译文：美国反舞弊性财务报告委员会发起组织的报告组织概述COSO是成立于1985年的美国反虚假财务报告委员会（特雷德韦委员会）的发起组织委员会。
附录A附录B如何监测内部控制内部控制是任何组织有效运行的关键,董事会、执行长和内部审计人员都为实现这个企业的目标而工作;该内部控制系统是使这些团体确保那些目标的达成的一种手段。
控制帮助一个企业有效率地运转。
此外,运用一种有效的风险系统,风险可被降低到最小。
同时,控制促进经营和与经营有关的信息的可靠性。
全美反舞弊性财务报告委员会发起组织(COSO；1992) 在它发布的具有开创性的文件《内部控制整合框架》中,将内部控制定义为：企业风险管理是一个过程，受企业董事会、管理层和其他员工的影响，包括内部控制及其在战略和整个公司的应用，旨在为实现经营的效率和效果、财务报告的可靠性以及法规的遵循提供合理保证。
该委员会还指出,一个的内部控制的系统包括五个要素。
它们是：控制环境、风险评估、信息和沟通、控制活动、监控。
COSO的定义及五个要素已被证明确实对不同的团体,如董事会和首席执行官起到作用。
这些群体对内部控制系统的监管以及系统设计与运行有责任。
而且,内部审计人员已经发现COSO的指导是有用的。
这群人员可能会被董事会或管理层要求去测试控制。
COSO最近发布的一份讨论文件，指出五个要素监控,其中的五个要素的确定在1992 frame work COSO原本。
中国发展简报的题为《内部控制-整合框架：内部控制体系监督指南》(COSO，2007)。
在文件中,COSO 强调监控的重要性，以及这些信息常常被没有充分利用。
因为董事会、执行长,和内部审计人员都在一个公司的内部控制中扮演着重要角色，内部控制的各要素,包括监测,都对所有的团体有着非常重要的意义。
同时,外审计人员对监测有兴趣。
《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》（2002）为外部审计师创建了一个新的监督体制。
所有的五个要素,包括监测,必须加以考虑。
另外,内部控制审计必须结合对财务报告的检查。
在一体化审计之前，在首席执行官的领导下，也许也在内部审计活动的支持下的管理，评估了内控制体系的有效性。
关于打击财务报告舞弊的研究【外文翻译】本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译外文题目Fighting Financial Reporting Fraud 外文出处Internal Auditor 外文作者 Green, Scott 原文：Fighting Financial Reporting Fraud CONGRES PASSED THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEYACT of 2002 with the goal of rebuilding investor confidence and protectingcapital markets. It recognized that strong internal controls were animportant component of confidence building. Section 404 of the actaddresses this component by mandating an annual evaluation of internalcontrols and procedures for financial reporting and requiring managementto assess and certify the effectiveness of these controls. In additionSarbanes-Oxley requires a company's external auditor to complete aseparate report that attests to management's assessment of theeffectiveness of internal controls and procedures for financial reporting.In short, the external auditor must perform testing to validatemanagement's assessment of the internal control structure. A stronginternal audit function can provide both management and the publicaccountants with comfort that the control structure is being evaluatedregularly and that deficiencies are remedied. Documenting and evaluatinga company's processes and related control structure are traditional internal audit tasks that protect the enterprise. However, the degree to which internal auditors focus on the accuracy of their organization's financial reporting presentation and disclosure, in addition to operational audits, is a matter of judgment. Critical factors that will determine the scope of internal auditing involvement in the financial reporting process include the strength and experience of the external auditors as well as the extent of their reliance on the internal control function the transparency and culture of the enterprise and audit priorities based on solid risk analysis. There are three steps every auditor should take-regardless of their level of' involvement-to help protect the organization from fraudulent financial reporting: * Listen to rogues and whistleblowers. * Ask focused questions that may lead to red flags of financial reporting trouble. * Watch for financial oddities by benchmarking performance. Investors depend on interim financial reports and need to believe these reports are fair and accurate. Internal auditing can provide valuable oversight to organizations by helping to ensure that communications arc free from inappropriate financial engineering. THE ART OF LISTENING One of the problems with financial reporting scandals is that an unscrupulous chief financial officer (CFO) and members of his or her team are unlikely to announce their intentions. In fact, a common thread running through World Com, Enron, and otherhigh-profile financial sandals is that each company had a strong, respected CFO who kept the number of people involved in the scandal to a minimum, exerted incredible control over the working group and commanded the group's loyalty above all other ethical considerations. These CFOs reportedly rewarded those who supported them and intimidated, excluded, and punished those who did not. No auditor can reasonably expect such II tightly knit group to volunteer that their boss is playing with the numbers. The CFO's sycophants will court his or her approval at the expense of all else even the total destruction of the enterprise. The good news is that, in recent cases, there were outsiders who were willing to step forward. At Enron, for example, Sherron Watkins, a corporate vice president, specifically told both Andersen and senior executives of her concerns regarding the conflict of interest between Enron and the special purpose entities (SPEs) the CFO administered as well as the perception of improper accounting at many of the SPEs he created. She also raised the possibility of the complete financial collapse of the company. Had they listened to Watkins, the fraud might have been identified earlier, thereby limiting the damage to the company and its empl。
财务报表舞弊上市公司会计舞弊外文文献翻译文献出处：Amara I, Amar A B, Jarboui A. Detection of Fraud in Financial Statements: French Companies as a Case Study[J]. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 2013, 3(3): 40-51.翻译后中文字数：7240第一部分为译文，第二部分为原文。
默认格式：中文五号宋体，英文五号Times New Roma，行间距1.5倍。
财务报表舞弊的检测：以法国公司为例摘要：本研究的目的是检验“舞弊三角”元素对财务报表舞弊行为的影响。
我们使用2001年至2009年期间的SBF250中的80家法国公司的样本数据，使用逻辑回归方法进行分析。
研究发现，对经理施加绩效考核的压力是导致财务报表舞弊的因素之一。
与财务困难（债务，流动性）和审计事务所规模等因素与舞弊无关。
关键词：舞弊，舞弊三角，压力，机会1.引言如今，全球经济经历了一系列金融危机，导致市场、投资者和舆论对公司账户的不信任。
在这里，只要强调一个事实，即安然公司，一家前美国的能源商品和服务公司，已经为所有社会伙伴造成了70万亿美元的损失。
因此，上述的借口带来了随之而来的经济危机，这种危机已经蔓延到全球所有新兴计划。
例如，广泛宣传的丑闻是Worldcom，Parmalat，Ahold 等的案例（Rezaee，2005年）。
当然，上面列出的财务丑闻不是商界信任危机的唯一原因。
影响经济的真正祸患无疑是“舞弊”。
所有的操作在一定程度上是固有的共同之处：它包括欺骗，违反了对社区造成损害的行为和法规。
正如Rouff（2003）所述，“舞弊是一种故意行为，其作者是一个真正的罪犯”。
会计舞弊财务舞弊外文文献翻译(含：英文原文及中文译文)文献出处：Badawi I M. Global corporate accounting frauds and action for reforms[J]. Review of Business, 2005, :26(:2).英文原文Global Corporate Accounting Frauds and Action for ReformsIbrahim BadawiSt. John’s UniversityAbstractThe recent wave of corporate fraudulent financial reporting has prompted global actions for reforms in corporate governance and financial reporting, by governments and accounting and auditing standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and internationally, including the European Commission; the International Federation of Accountants; the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and others, in order to restore investor confidence in financial reporting, the accounting profession and global financial markets.IntroductionDuring the recent series of corporate fraudulent financial reporting incidents in the U.S., similar corporate scandals were disclosed in several other countries. Almost all cases of foreign corporate accounting frauds were committed by entities that conduct their businesses in more than onecountry, and most of these entities are also listed on U.S. stock exchanges. Following the legislative and regulatory reforms of corporate America, resulting from the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002, reforms were also initiated worldwide. The primary purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) to identify the prominent American and foreign companies involved in fraudulent financial reporting and the nature of accounting irregularities they committed; and (2) to highlight the global reaction for corporate reforms which are aimed at restoring investor confidence in financial reporting, the public accounting profession and global capital markets.Cases of Global Corporate Accounting FraudsThe list of corporate financial accounting scandals in the U.S. is extensive, and each one was the result of one or more creative accounting irregularities. Exhibit 1 identifies a sample of U.S. companies that committed such fraud and the nature of their fraudulent financial reporting activities.Who Commits Financial Fraud and HowThere are three groups of business people who commit financial statement frauds. They range from senior management (CEO and CFO); mid- and lower-level management; and organizational criminals [6,16]. CEOs and CFOs commit accounting frauds to conceal true business performance, to preserve personal status and control and to maintain personal income and wealth. Mid- and lower-level employees falsifyfinancial statements related to their area of responsibility (subsidiary, division or other unit) to conceal poor performance and/or to earn performance-based bonuses. Organizational criminals falsify financial statements to obtain loans or to inflate a stock they plan to sell in a “pump-and-dump” scheme. Methods o f financial statement schemes range from fictitious or fabricated revenues; altering the times at which revenues are recognized; improper asset valuations and reporting; concealing liabilities and expenses; and improper financial statement disclosures.Global Regulatory Action for Corporate and Accounting ReformsIn response to corporate and accounting scandals, the effects of which are still being felt throughout the U.S. economy, and in order to protect public interest and to restore investor confidence in the capital market, U.S. lawmakers, in a compromise by the House and Senate, passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. President Bush signed this Act into law (Public Law 107-204) on July 30, 2002. The Act resulted in major changes to compliance practices of large U.S. and non-U.S. companies whose securities are listed or traded on U.S. stock exchanges, requiring executives, boards of directors and external auditors to undertake measures to implement greater accountability, responsibility and transparency of financial reporting. The statutes of the Act, and the new SEC initiatives that followed [1,4,8,12,15], are considered the mostsignificant legislation and regulations affecting the corporate community and the accounting profession since 1933. Other U.S. regulatory bodies such as NYSE, NASDAQ and the State Societies of CPAs have also passed new regulations which place additional burdens on publicly traded companies and their external auditors.The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOA) is expressly applicable to any non-U.S. company registered on U.S. exchanges under either the Securities Act of 1933 or the Security Exchange Act of 1934, regardless of country of incorporation or corporate domicile. Furthermore, external auditors of such registrants, regardless of their nationality or place of business, are subject to the oversight of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and to the statutory requirements of the SOA.The United States’ SOA has reverberated around the globe through the corporate and accounting reforms addressed by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC); the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); the European Commission (UC); and authoritative bodies within individual European countries.International Federation of Accountants (IFAC)The IFAC is a private governance organization whose members are the national professional associations of accountants. It formally describes itself as the global representative of the accounting profession, with the objective of serving the public interest, strengthening theworldwide accountancy profession and contributing to the development of strong international economies by establishing and promoting adherence to high quality standards [9]. The Federation represents accountancy groups worldwide and has served as a reminder that restoring public confidence in financial reporting and the accounting profession should be considered a global mission. It is also considered a key player in the global auditing arena which, among other things, constructs international standards on auditing and has laid down an international ethical code for professional accountants [14]. The IFAC has recently secured a degree of support for its endeavors from some of the world’s most influential interna tional organizations in economic and financial spheres, including global Financial Stability Forum (FSF), the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), the World Bank and, most significantly, the EC. In October 2002, IFAC commissioned a Task Force on Rebuilding Public Confidence in Financial Reporting to use a global perspective to consider how to restore the credibility of financial reporting and corporate disclosure. Its report, “Rebuilding Public Confidence in Financial Reporting: An International Perspective,” includes recommendations for strengthening corporate governance, and raising the regulating standards of issuers. Among its conclusions and recommendations related to audit committees are:1. All public interest entities should have an independent auditcommittee or similar body.2. The audit committee should regularly report to the board and should address concerns about financial information, internal controls or the audit.3. The audit committee must meet regularly and have sufficient time to perform its role effectively.4. Audit committees should have core responsibilities, including monitoring and reviewing the integrity of financial reporting, financial controls, the internal audit function, as well as for recommending, working with and monitoring the external auditors.5. Audit committee members should be financially literate and a majority should have “substantial financial experience.” They should receive further training as necessary on their responsibilities and on the company.6. Audit committees should have regular private “executive sessions” with the outside auditors and the head of the internal audit department. These executive sessions should not include members of management. There should be similar meetings with the chief financial officer and other key financial executives, but without other members of management.7. Audit committee members should be independent of management.8. There should be a principles-based approach to definingindependence on an international level. Companies should disclose committee members’ credentials, remuneration and shareholdings.9. Reinforcing the role of the audit committee should improve the relationship between the auditor and the company. The audit committee should recommend the hiring and firing of auditors and approve their fees, as well as review the audit plan. 10. The IFAC Code of Ethics should be the foundation for individual national independence rules. It should be relied on in making decisions on whether auditors should provide non-audit services. Non-audit services performed by the auditor should be approved by the audit committee.11. All fees, for audit and non-audit services, should be disclosed to shareholders.12. Key audit team members, including the engagement and independent review partners, should serve no longer than seven years on the audit.13. Two years should pass before a key audit team member can takea position at the company as a director or any other important management positionOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is a quasi-think tank made up of 30 member countries, includingthe United States and United Kingdom, and it has working relationships with more than 70 other countries. In 2004, the OECD unveiled the updated revision of its “Principles of Corporate Governance” that had originally been adopted by its member governments (including the U.S. and UK) in 1999. Although they are nonbinding, the principles provide a reference for national legislation and regulation, as well as guidance for stock exchanges, investors, corporations and other parties [11,13]. The principles have long become an international benchmark for policy makers, investors, corporations and other stakeholders worldwide. They have advanced the corporate governance agenda and provided specific guidance for legislative and regulatory initiatives in both the OECD and non-OECD countries.The 2004 updated version of “Principles of Corporate Governance” includes recommendations on accounting and auditing standards, the independence of board members and the need for boards to act in the interest of the company and the shareholders. The updated version also sets more demanding standards in a number of areas that impact corporate executive compensation and finance, such as:1. Granting investors the right to nominate company directors, as well as a more forceful role in electing them.2. Providing shareholders with a voice in the compensation policy for board members and executives, and giving these stockholders theability to submit questions to auditors.3. Mandating that institutional investors disclose their overall voting policies and how they manage material conflicts of interest that may affect the way the investors exercise key ownership functions, such as voting4. Identifying the need for effective protection of creditor rights and an efficient system for dealing with corporate insolvency.5. Directing rating agencies, brokers and other providers of information that could influence investor decisions to disclose conflicts of interest, and how those conflicts are being managed.6. Mandating board members to be more rigorous in disclosing related party transactions, and protecting soca lled “whistle blowers” by providing the employees with confidential access to a board-level contact.U.S.-EU Cooperation for Corporate Reforms Initially, the European Union resented applicability of U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act reforms to European companies and accounting firms operating in the U.S. However, after a series of negotiations, the U.S. and EU authorities have agreed to cooperate and decided to develop a compatible set of regulations. The regulatory bodies on both continents have undertaken a two-way cooperative approach based on effective equivalence of regulation and oversight authorities. Furthermore, member states of the European Union have proposed a code of conduct on the independent auditors whichincludes a five-year auditor rotation requirement. Furthermore, the national governments of the individual European countries have proposed reforms of their corporate laws. For example, in July 2002, the British government released a white paper proposing changes to the Company Law, which included harsher penalties for misleading auditors; redefining the roles of the directors; and creating standards for boards in accounting supervision and other disclosure issues. The British government is also reviewing the roles of non-executive directors and is considering the regulation of audit committees.中文译文全球企业会计欺诈与改革行动易卜拉欣·巴达维圣约翰大学摘要最近一波企业欺诈性财务报告激发了全球公司治理和财务报告改革，政府和会计和审计机构在美国和国际上的标准制定机构，包括欧盟委员会，国际会计师联合会;经济合作与发展组织;以恢复投资者对财务报告，会计行业和全球金融市场的信心。
虚假财务报告的后果中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)虚假财务报告的后果1.欺诈和欺诈性财务报告从广义上讲，欺诈可能被定义为故意以不正当行为或非法手段获得的增益以及优势。
这可能包括：（鲁宾G . A .，2007）财务报告舞弊；挪用资产（在内部或外部的系统中做出，如：贪污，工资欺诈和盗窃等行为）；获得非法资产或进行不道德的活动（如：利用过度的客户结算或欺诈性的销售行为）；用于非法目的的费用（商业和公共贿赂以及其他不正当支付系统）；欺瞒获得的收入或有意回避成本（在系统实体中对员工或第三方欺诈，或当一个实体通过一定手段故意避免成本，如收入税和销售税）；对公司的欺诈行为（例如假冒生产者故意侵犯知识产权）。
可以通过对该部门机构的制度的完整性的认识来调查它的欺诈行为。
它在调查了世界银行集团和银行的融资项目后，指控了他们的欺诈和腐败行为，认定了哪些行为可以被认为行为是在银行系统中的欺诈或腐败行为：（Banca银行,蒙迪艾尔.2009）拍卖欺诈，在拍卖中理解所有的参与者，在合同执行中的欺诈，避免对合同执行的审计，做出不适当的价格和伙伴关系，让审计人员误判合同中的成本和工作，并对审计人员进行贿赂，错误地使用世界银行的资金或自己的立场，这就是在运动，偷窃和欺骗的情况下的欺诈。
虽然所有类别的欺诈都可以说是主要的和值得辩论，但是只有财务报告舞弊才是影响最大的和最值得研究的。
（鲁宾G . A .，2007）在财务报告中欺诈行为的基础是肇事者（董事，审计人员，员工等）错误地提出了现实的自觉意图。
但错误地提出现实的自觉意图的原因可能是欺诈财务报告中任何一项不当资产的回收。
因此，“欺诈性报告仅指故意歪曲，包括遗漏大量财务信息旨在误导财务报表的使用者”也可译为（波帕一人，铝。
罗斯·，2009）：操纵，伪造，伪造或更改文件或证明文件，错误或遗漏的事件、交易或信息，故意滥用会计原则与价值、分类、方式介绍或信息传递，虚拟条目记录（年底）操纵结果或达到其他目标，调整不正确的假设和判断来估计帐户余额，遗漏、发展或拖延承认事件或交易发生在报告所述期间，隐瞒或保密的事实可能影响的数量记录在财务报表，在改变记录或条件的重大交易中；进行复杂的交易旨在歪曲实体的财务状况或性能。
样例CICS 证书考试试题样例选择题1、下列哪一个组织不是美国反虚假财务报告委员会发起组织委员会（COSO ）的成员？ ◌ A. 美国注册会计师协会 ◌ B. 美国会计师联合会 ◌ C. 国际内部控制协会◌ D. 国际内部审计师协会 ◌ E. 管理会计师协会2、COSO 控制框架将对交易处理的控制分类为： ◌ A 环境控制 ◌ B 沟通控制 ◌ C 控制活动 ◌ D 信息控制3、组织中有权力和职责评价组织绩效以及内部控制措施适当性和遵从性的职能是： ◌ A 质量控制 ◌ B 质量周期 ◌ C 绩效衡量 ◌ D 内部审计4、按照COSO 的定义：内部控制是一种流程，受到企业董事会、管理层和其他人员的影响，旨在为实现下列分类目标提供合理的保证。
以下哪一个目标不是COSO 提出的控制目标？ ◌ A 资产的会计责任 ◌ B 运营的效果性与效率性 ◌ C 财务报告的可靠性◌ D 遵从适用的法律法规。
5、按照可能性和潜在影响量化每一风险，如果风险是重大的应进行：◌ A 风险识别 ◌ B 风险衡量样例◌ D 控制监督 6、内部控制系统可以：◌ A 确保企业成功 ◌ B 确保财务报告的可靠性 ◌ C 确保遵从法律法规◌ D 帮助企业实现其目标 7、组织风险承受度以什么为导向： ◌ A 风险战略◌ B 组织愿意接受风险的程度 ◌ C 风险定量 ◌ D 评估风险的方法8、利益相关者包括以下那些人？ ◌ A 在被评估活动范围内的人士◌ B 高级管理层 ◌ C 供应商 ◌ D 顾客 ◌ E 所有上述人员9、《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》要求律师代表公司首先应向谁报告重大的违反证券法，或违反受托责任的证据？◌ A 美国证券交易委员会（SEC ） ◌ B 首席法律顾问 ◌ C 董事会主席 ◌ D 独立会计事务所的审计师主管 ◌ E 首席执行官（CEO ） 10、控制的首要目的是：◌ A 确保员工作“正确的事” ◌ B 有助于管理层保证组织的盈利能力 ◌ C 有助于消灭舞弊和错误行为 ◌ D 有助于在降低失败风险的同时实现目标 ICI 中国总部。
COSO报告—内部控制整体架构1992年，美国“反虚假财务报告委员会”（National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting，简称Treadway Commission）所属的内部控制研究委员会—发起机构委员会（Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission，简称COSO委员会）提出报告：《内部控制—整体架构》（Internal Control—Integrated Framework），简称COSO报告。
COSO报告指出：内部控制是一个过程，受企业董事会、管理当局和其他员工影响，旨在保证财务报告的可靠性、经营的效果和效率以及现行法规的遵循。
（一）控制环境控制环境塑造企业文化，影响企业员工的控制意识。
它提供企业纪律与架构，是所有其他内部控制组成要素的基础。
（1）诚信的原则和道德价值观▪严格一致地保持行为上的诚信和高尚的道德标准；▪不要盲目追求不切实际的目标，以致形成不必要的压力；▪对敏感职位的财务分工要准确明细，以免造成偷窃资产或隐藏不佳绩效的引诱；▪加强企业的内部审核制度；▪发挥董事会的职能，使其客观监督企业的高层管理阶层；▪提供道德方面的指导，使所有雇员在一般和特定环境下能够保持正确的判断；▪制作文字化的行为准则和政策声明，将其传达给全体雇员，每个人都有向上级报告自己知道的或怀疑的违规行为的责任，使每个人都清楚违规一定会受到处罚；▪将诱发人们不诚实、非法和不道德行为的动机降至最低。
（2）评定员工的能力▪订有正式或非正式的职务说明书，或其他能确定某项特定工作是由那些职务所组成的方法；▪分析能胜任某特定工作所须具备的知识和技能。
（3）董事会和审计委员会▪成员的经验；▪相对于管理层的独立性；▪外部董事的比例；▪其成员参与管理的程度；▪所采取措施的适宜性；▪对管理层提出问题的程度；▪他们与内、外部审计人员的相互关系。
【摘要】文章通过对美国财务报告内部控制信息披露规则演变的研究发现，美国财务报告内部控制信息披露的实施并不是一帆风顺，一些重要规则也是几经改变。
美国的经验表明，尽管财务报告内部控制信息披露是大势所趋，但是在我国强制财务报告内部控制信息披露决不可操之过急。
【关键词】美国财务报告内部控制；信息披露；启示安然等公司的会计丑闻促使美国国会痛下决心，最终通过了旨在打击上市公司会计舞弊，保障财务报告质量的《萨班斯法案》。
《萨班斯法案》最重要的内容之一就是强制要求符合批报规则的公司对外披露内部控制信息。
尽管1991年美国联邦存款保险改进法（fcicia）曾经要求资产超过5亿美元的金融公司披露内部控制信息，但是像《萨班斯法案》这样要求如此大范围的公司公开披露内部控制信息在美国历史尚属首次。
《萨班斯法案》的影响迅速遍及整个世界。
依据欧洲公司治理研究所（european corporate governance institute）的调查，截至2004年末，已有26个欧洲国家颁布治理法或提议依照《萨班斯法案》强制公司披露内部控制信息。
日本国会也于2007年颁布金融工具交易法（financial instruments and exchange law），规定所有上市公司在2008年4月1日之后的年报中提供内部控制评估报告。
上市公司披露内部控制信息已经是大势所趋。
《萨班斯法案》以及美国财务报告内部控制（internal control over financial reporting，后文简称icfr）信息披露相关规则对我国内部控制信息披露政策的制定具有重要借鉴意义。
国内已有学者开始这方面的研究。
但这些文献主要集中于2002年《萨班斯法案》和2003年美国证券监督委员会（后文简称sec）最终规则的研究，而在此之后美国内部控制新条款又不断推出，以前的部分规则也发生了较大改变。
本文从icfr新概念的推出入手，重点讨论时至今日美国上市公司icfr的规则演变，希望对我国上市公司内部控制信息披露政策的制定提供有益的借鉴。
论述企业反舞弊性财务报告的防范系统[摘要]在审计进展的历史上,公司财务报告舞弊始终是困扰审计职业界的重大社会问题。
Treadway Commis-sion (全美反舞弊财务报告委员会)的COSO报告全面地论述了企业反舞弊性财务报告的防范系统,其对当前我国资本市场中存在的会计信息失真、审计风险加重、投资者决策失效等问题的研究和解决有专门好的借鉴意义。
在审计进展的历史上,公司财务报告舞弊始终是困扰审计职业界的重大社会问题。
20世纪90年代以来,公司财务报告舞弊行为更为猖獗。
据1995年美国注册舞弊审核师协会(Association of Certified Fraud Examiners,ACFE)的报告估量,财务报告舞弊每一年造成美国经济损失约高达4000亿美元。
另外,据注册会计师联合保险公司估量,美国财务报告舞弊案每一年以15%的速度递增。
1998年,毕马威国际会计公司(Peat Mar wick)对舞弊问题进行了第三次普遍调查,调查样本来自于20个行业的5000家企业和组织,被调查对象包括单位的高级治理者、经营主管、财务领导、证券领导、内部审计人员和一样工作人员等。
调查显示, 1998年,每起舞弊案的平均金额为11•6万美元,百万美元以上的舞弊案也很多。
舞弊现象(尤其是财务报告的舞弊)在我国也比较严峻。
我国自经济体制改革以来,随着资本市场的不断深切进展,经济繁荣,但同时也有一些腐败分子利用转轨进程中显现的问题,想方设法谋取私利,阻碍了经济的健康进展。
大量虚假财务报告的涌现正是这一腐败现象的集中反映,这使得治理舞弊性财务报告成为当前的紧迫问题。
另外,随着治理技术含量的提高、网络技术的应用及电子贸易的扩大,财务报告舞弊的机遇还在不断增加,手腕也更为隐蔽。
因此,有必要借鉴国外的成功体会,充分发挥我国审计人员在避免舞弊性财务报告方面的作用。
一、COSO舞弊财务报告研究功效简介财务报告舞弊具有极大的危害性,它不仅大大增加了审计风险,还误导投资者和债权人,使他们依据失实的财务信息作犯错误的判定和决策,而且致使政府监管部门不能及时发觉、防范和化解企业集团和金融机构的财务风险,这必将致使整个社会的会计信息失真,其危害将是灾难性的。
美国全美反舞弊性财务报告委员会所属分类：待翻译的条目 , 会计师公会目录 [隐藏]∙COSO委员会简介∙COSO的运行∙COSO Board of Directors本条目包含过多不是中文的内容，欢迎协助翻译。
若已有相当内容译为中文，可迳自去除本模板。
COSO委员会(Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission)COSO委员会(Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission，简称COSO)COSO委员会网站网址：/编辑COSO委员会简介COSO委员会（全美反舞弊性财务报告委员会发起组织，Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission，缩写COSO）1985年，由美国注册会计师协会(AICPA)、美国会计学会(AAA)、财务经理人协会(FEI)、美国内部审计师协会(国际内部审计师协会的前身，IIA)、美国管理会计师协会(IMA)联合创建了反虚假财务报告委员会（通常称Treadway委员会），旨在探讨财务报告中的舞弊产生的原因，并寻找解决之道。
两年后，基于该委员会的建议，其赞助机构成立COSO（Committee of Sponsoring Organization，COSO）委员会，专门研究内部控制问题。
1992年9月，COSO委员会发布《内部控制整合框架》（COSO-IC），简称COSO报告，1994年进行了增补。
这些成果马上得到了美国审计署(GAO) 的认可，美国注册会计师协会（AICPA）也全面接受其内容并于1995年发布了《审计准则公告第78号》。
由于COSO报告提出的内部控制理论和体系集内部控制理论和实践发展之大成，成为现代内部控制最具有权威性的框架，因此在业内倍受推崇，在美国及全球得到广泛推广和应用。
COSO报告：1992年发布的《内部控制整体框架》ERM：企业风险管理整体框架CP控制点CCP关键控制点SSOP卫生标准操作规范COSO：美国虚假财务报告委员会的杜德威小组COCO：加拿大注册会计师公会所属的控制基准委员会IIA：国际内部审计师协会SOX：法案《萨班斯—奥克斯利法案》（美国国会）SEC：美国证券交易委员会AAA：美国会计学会AICPA：美国注册会计师协会第一章内部控制基本理论内部控制，是指组织为了提高经济效率和充分有效地获取和使用各种资源，达到既定的管理目标，而在内部实施的各种制约和调节的组织、计划、方法和程序。
内部控制的主体，即内部控制设计、执行和考核评价的主体，是单位内部的行政领导、职能部门及其有关工作人员。
内部控制的客体是单位内部的经济、业务管理活动。
内部控制以责任、牵制、程序、手段等项制度为控制依据。
内部控制的主要目的是为了领导、组织、协调、监督企事业单位和机关团体内部的各项管理活动。
内部控制的分类：（1）从内部控制范围来看，主要有“部分控制论”和“全部控制力论”。
“部分控制论”观点的大多数人认为，内部控制只包括与处理经济业务有关的内部会计控制，内部控制只与资产管理有关，而与行政、业务管理无关。
“全部控制力论”观点的人总的看法是，内部控制应当包括全部管理控制，它已超越了会计、财务的范围，渗透到经营的各个方面和管理的全过程。
（2）从内部控制手段来看，主要有“牵制论”和“组织方法论”。
“牵制论”观点者认为，内部控制只包括相互联系、相互制约的“管理制度”或“职责分工制度”。
“牵制论”属于“部分控制论”的观点。
“组织方法论”观点者认为，内部控制不仅包括牵制制度，还包括组织、方法、手续等其他手段。
“组织方法论”属于“全部控制论”的观点。
（3）从内部控制目的来看，主要有“三目的论”和“四目的论”两种观点。
“三目的论”者认为，内部控制是为了保护单位的财产，保证会计记录的准确可靠和及时提供可靠的财务信息。
本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译外文题目Committee of sponsoring organizationsof the treadway Commission 外文出处Enterprise risk management外文作者Committee of sponsoring organizations 原文：Committee of sponsoring organizations of the treadway commission Organizational overviewCOSO was formed in 1985 to sponsor the National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting (the Treadway Commission). The Treadway Commission was originally jointly sponsored and funded by five main professional accounting associations and institutes headquartered in the United States: the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), American Accounting Association (AAA), Financial Executives International (FEI), Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) and the Institute of Management Accountants(IMA). The Treadway Commission recommended that the organizations sponsoring the Commission work together to develop integrated guidance on internal control. These five organizations formed what is now called the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.The original chairman of the Treadway Commission was James C. Treadway, Jr., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Paine Webber Incorporated and a former Commissioner of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Hence, the popular name "Treadway Commission". Currently, David L. Landsittel replaced Larry E. Rittenberg as the COSO Chairman.HistoryDue to questionable corporate political campaign finance practices and foreigncorrupt practices in the mid -1970s, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the U.S. Congress enacted campaign finance law reforms and the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act(FCPA) which criminalized transnational bribery and required companies to implement internal control programs. In response, the Treadway Commission, a private-sector initiative, was formed in 1985 to inspect, analyze, and make recommendations on fraudulent corporate financial reporting.The Treadway Commission studied the financial information reporting system over the period from October 1985 to September 1987 and issued a report of findings and recommendations in October 1987 titled Report of the National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting. As a result of this initial report, the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) was formed and it retained Coopers & Lybrand, a major CPA firm, to study the issues and author a report regarding an integrated framework of internal control.In September 1992, the four volume report entitled Internal Control— Integrated Framework was released by COSO and later re-published with minor amendments in 1994. This report presented a common definition of internal control and provided a framework against which internal control systems may be assessed and improved. This report is one standard that U.S. companies use to evaluate their compliance with FCPA. According to a poll by CFO Magazine released in 2006, 82% of respondents claimed t hey used COSO’s framework for internal controls. Other frameworks used by respondents included COBIT, AS2 (Auditing Standard No. 2, PCAOB), and SAS 55/78 (AICPA).Internal control - integrated frameworkKey concepts of the COSO frameworkThe COSO framework involves several key concepts:∙Internal control is a process. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself.∙Internal control is affected by people. It’s not merely policy, manuals, and forms, but people at every level of an organization.∙Internal control can be expected to provide only reasonable assurance, not absolute assurance, to an entity’s management and board.Internal control is geared to the achievement of objectives in one or more separate but overlapping categories.Use of the capability maturity modelThe capabilities of an organization in relation to the COSO model could be assessed based on universal states or plateaus that organizations typically target. The descriptions are incremental.The capability descriptions are based on evolution toward generally recognized best practices. Each organization determines which level of "maturity" would be the most appropriate in support of its business needs, priorities and availability of resources. A rating system of “0” to “5” is used. A rating of “5” does not necessarily mean “goodness”, but rather, maturity of capability. The ideal maturity rating for any area is dependent on the needs of the organization. The different and progressive plateaus are: 0 Non-existent when:The organization lacks procedures to monitor the effectiveness of internal controls. Management internal control reporting methods are absent. There is a general unawareness of IT operational security and internal control assurance. Management and employees have an overall lack of awareness of internal controls.1 Initial/Ad Hoc when:Management recognizes the need for regular IT management and control assurance. Individual expertise in assessing internal control adequacy is applied on an ad hoc basis. IT management has not formally assigned responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of internal controls. IT internal control assessments are conducted as part of traditional financial audits, with methodologies and skill sets that do not reflect the needs of the information services function.2 Repeatable but Intuitive when:The organization uses informal control reports to initiate corrective action initiatives. Internal control assessment is dependent on the skill sets of key individuals. The organization has an increased awareness of internal control monitoring. Information service management performs monitoring over the effectiveness of what it believes are critical internal controls on a regular basis. Methodologies and tools formonitoring internal controls are starting to be used, but not based on a plan. Risk factors specific to the IT environment are identified based on the skills of individuals.3 Defined when:Management supports and institutes internal control monitoring. Policies and procedures are developed for assessing and reporting on internal control monitoring activities. An education and training program for internal control monitoring is defined. A process is defined for self-assessments and internal control assurance reviews, with roles for responsible business and IT managers. Tools are being utilized but are not necessarily integrated into all processes. IT process risk assessment policies are being used within control frameworks developed specifically for the IT organization. Process-specific risks and mitigation policies are defined.4 Managed and Measurable when:Management implements a framework for IT internal control monitoring. The organization establishes tolerance levels for the internal control monitoring process. Tools are implemented to standardize assessments and automatically detect control exceptions. A formal IT internal control function is established, with specialized and certified professionals utilizing a formal control framework endorsed by senior management. Skilled IT staff members are routinely participating in internal control assessments. A metrics knowledge base for historical information on internal control monitoring is established. Peer reviews for internal control monitoring are established.5 Optimized when:Management establishes an organization wide continuous improvement program that takes into account lessons learned and industry best practices for internal control monitoring and reporting. The organization uses integrated and updated tools, where appropriate, that allow effective assessment of critical IT controls and rapid detection of IT control monitoring incidents. Knowledge sharing specific to the information services function is formally implemented. Benchmarking against industry standards and good practices is formalized.Definition of internal control and framework objectivesThe COSO framework defines internal control as a process, effected by an entity’sboard of directors, management and other personnel, designed to provide "reasonable assurance" regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories: ∙Effectiveness and efficiency of operations∙Reliability of financial reporting∙Compliance with applicable laws and regulationsThe five framework componentsThe COSO internal control framework consists of five interrelated components derived from the way management runs a business. According to COSO, these components provide an effective framework for describing and analyzing the internal control system implemented in an organization as required by financial regulations (see Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 240 15d-15). The five components are the following:Control environment:The control environment sets the tone of an organization, influencing the control consciousness of its people. It is the foundation for all other components of internal control, providing discipline and structure. Control environment factors include the integrity, ethical values, management's operating style, delegation of authority systems, as well as the processes for managing and developing people in the organization.Risk assessment:Every entity faces a variety of risks from external and internal sources that must be assessed. A precondition to risk assessment is establishment of objectives and thus risk assessment is the identification and analysis of relevant risks to the achievement of assigned objectives. Risk assessment is a prerequisite for determining how the risks should be managed.Control activities: Control activities are the policies and procedures that help ensure management directives are carried out. They help ensure that necessary actions are taken to address the risks that may hinder the achievement of the entity's objectives. Control activities occur throughout the organization, at all levels and in all functions. They include a range of activities as diverse as approvals, authorizations, verifications, reconciliations, reviews of operating performance, security of assets and segregation of duties.Information and communication:Information systems play a key role in internal control systems as they produce reports, including operational, financial and compliance-related information, that make it possible to run and control the business. In a broader sense, effective communication must ensure information flows down, across and up the organization. For example, formalized procedures exist for people to report suspected fraud. Effective communication should also be ensured with external parties, such as customers, suppliers, regulators and shareholders about related policy positions.Monitoring: Internal control systems need to be monitored—a process that assesses the quality of the system's performance over time. This is accomplished through ongoing monitoring activities or separate evaluations. Internal control deficiencies detected through these monitoring activities should be reported upstream and corrective actions should be taken to ensure continuous improvement of the system. LimitationsInternal control involves human action, which introduces the possibility of errors in processing or judgment. Internal control can also be overridden by collusion among employees (see separation of duties) or coercion by top management.CFO magazine reported that companies are struggling to apply the complex model provided by COSO. “One of the biggest problems: limiting internal audits to one of the three key objectives of the framework. In the COSO model, those objectives are applied to five key components (monitoring, information and communication, control activities, risk assessment, and control environment). Given the number of possible matrices, it's not surprising that the number of audits can get out of hand.” CFO magazine continued by stating, that many organization are creating their own risk-and-control matrix by taking the COSO model and altering it to focus on the components that relate directly to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.Source：Enterprise risk management,2004.译文：美国反舞弊性财务报告委员会发起组织的报告组织概述COSO是成立于1985年的美国反虚假财务报告委员会（特雷德韦委员会）的发起组织委员会。
