審計師該如何保持與客户間的安全距離（中英文）

根據相關規定，審計人員與客户之間的關係不得過於親近。否則，這將涉嫌違反審計獨立原則。該原則旨在確保審計公司在審計過程中保持客觀性和公平性。但是近日，安永合夥人和客户公司的財務總監保持着不恰當的親密關係。美國證交會因此對其進行詳細調查，並開出鉅額罰單。那麼，在審計工作中，大家應該保持怎樣的安全距離呢?下面是yjbys小編為大家帶來的關於審計師該如何保持與客户間的安全距離的知識，歡迎閲讀。

　　Professionalrelationships: how close is too close

　　職業社交：怎樣的距離算是太近?

　　RolleenMcDonnell，29 September 2016

　　翻譯：Yue, MengYu, Kat

EY recently made headlines when they came under scrutiny from the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) for allegedly breaching auditor independence rules, which require a degree of separation between auditors and the companies they audit. Gregory Bednar, a partner at EY, had, according to the SEC, sent hundreds of personal messages to the CFO of its client and they had travelled together with family members for no valid business purpose. Significant fines resulted.

These headlines raise an interesting question as to some of the legal, regulatory and employment law issues that can arise when professional relationships with clients or colleagues become personal.

　　The client relationship

In the UK, being seen to develop to close a relationship with clients can pose legal risks to the company. For example, auditors in the UK are also under a legal obligation to be independent from the audited entity. There will also potentially be exposure for firms under the Bribery Act if their employees either accepting or offering corporate hospitality inappropriately.

Trips to sporting events or celebratory dinners for business reasons should not pose a problem. However, lavishing extravagant trips or gifts on clients as the result of a personal relationship could create an exposure under the Bribery Act as well as being an act of misconduct on the part of the employee concerned.

Other professional obligations can come into play if advisers develop personal relationships with their clients. For example, whilst there is no professional rule preventing lawyers having relationships with their clients, solicitors owe their clients a fiduciary duty and certain relationships could pose a breach of that duty, such as entering into a personal relationship with a vulnerable client who is going through a divorce.

　　Relationships at work

Many employers are also concerned about internal relationships between their employees. It is not unheard of for partnerships to operate a "no sibling policy" or "no spouses/partners policy" at recruitment stage to avoid the risk of its partnership placing personal allegiances over the interests of the business. Job applicants are protected against discrimination on the grounds of protected characteristics.

This will not assist a job applicant who is prevented from making an application due to a sibling in the business but the position is not quite so clear with a no spouses/partners policy. Marriage is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, however, there is conflicting case law as to whether someone will be protected as a result of a marriage or close relationship with a particular person (the wider view), or whether protection will only apply if a person would be treated less favourably because they are married to the person in question, rather than in a long-term co-habiting relationship for example (the narrower view). If the narrower view applies then, providing the policy is appropriately worded, it will be lawful.

There is a distinction to be drawn between not hiring someone because of a personal relationship and dismissing someone because of it (assuming that it had not been improperly concealed). Any snap decision to dismiss an employee on the grounds of personal relationships will be unfair, if that employee has two years' service.

However, employees can be dismissed for "some other substantial reason" under the Employment Rights Act, which can include a breakdown of personal relationships and if these have reached the stage that hostilities have arisen, it may be reasonable to fairly dismiss one of the employees concerned. In this case there is an expectation that employers avoid the dismissal by mediating or reallocating one individual to another team so the larger a firm is, the less likely it is that a dismissal on these grounds would be considered fair.

On a practical level, it may also create practical difficulties if internal relationships are, or are perceived to be causing favouritism. For example, most employers would want to avoid a situation where an individual was deciding their partner’s bonus and sensible measures should be taken to avoid that risk.

　　Work socials

Whilst work social events are often important for the morale of a team, they also pose business risks. Employers can still be vicariously liable for their employees’ actions at out of hours work social events, including any harassing behaviour. No employer can eliminate this risk but they can minimise it by having clear policies in place and training and dealing with all complaints seriously.

Each workplace and each sector will pose its own challenges for employers, however, it is key for employers to be aware of the potential issues that could result from the stance they take on any form of personal relationship in the workplace and to act promptly and fairly.

安永會計師事務所(EY)受到美國證券交易委員會(US Securities Exchange Commission ，簡稱美國證交會或者SEC)的全面審查後，因其違反了審計獨立準則上了頭條。審計獨立規則要求審計師與被審計的公司之間在一定程度上相互獨立。根據美國證交會的報告，安永的合夥人格雷戈裏•貝特(Gregory Bednar)向其客户公司的財務總監發送了數百條私人信息。他們在家庭成員陪伴下共同出遊，且此次是非商務的出行。SEC對其處以高額罰款。

各大媒體標題都提出了一個有趣的問題：當與客户的工作合作關係轉為私人關係後，一些涉及法律法規和勞動條例的問題就會出現。

　　客户關係

在英國，與客户發展親密關係可能會被視為對公司造成潛在法律風險。例如，英國的審計師有獨立於被審計單位的法律義務。如果他們的員工接受或提供不恰當的招待，事務所也有可能涉嫌違反《賄賂法》。

出於商業原因參加體育賽事或慶祝晚宴應該不是問題。然而，出於私人關係而給客户贈送奢侈旅行優惠或禮品，可能會違反《賄賂法》。企業如果錯誤地指揮員工做同樣的事，也會涉嫌違法。

如果諮詢顧問與客户發展私人關係，其他的專業義務也需要履行。例如，雖然沒有專業的準則防止律師與客户發展關係，律師對他們的客户仍有受託責任，而某些關係可能違反這一義務(比如與一個正在經歷離婚的脆弱的客户發展私人關係)。

　　工作關係

很多僱主也關注他們的員工之間的內部關係。在招聘階段實行“無同胞政策”或説“無配偶政策”以防止其合夥人把個人關係置於企業利益之上。這並非沒有先例。求職者會受到保護，被保證不受這一“保護政策”的歧視。

對於那些因為有無配偶政策而受到限制的求職者來説，這種保護不能起到作用，因為這些條例不會在職位要求中被明晰地列出。 婚姻受到《平等法》的保護。然而，判例法中對於一些問題有相互矛盾的地方：廣泛來説，問題在於一個人是否會因其與某人的婚姻或親密關係而理應得到保護;狹義上來説，問題在於法律是否應該只在一種情況下起到保護作用，即如果只有一個人因其婚姻而不是長期同居關係而受到不平等的對待。如果狹義的觀點適用，而且政策被指定表述，那就是合法的。

因私人關係而不受聘用和因此被解僱之間是有差別的(假設，這一事實沒有被不當隱匿)。如果一個僱員提供了兩年的工作服務，任何以私人關係為藉口突然解僱他/她的決定都是不公平的。

然而，僱員可以根據《就業權利法》中規定的“一些其他實質性理由”被解僱。這些理由就可以包括私人關係破裂。如果這些行為引起了相互敵視，解僱有關僱員可能是公平合理的。在這種情況下，我們認為僱主應避免通過中介解僱僱員，或者將其重新分配給另一團隊。所以對於越大的.公司來説，認為以這些理由解僱員工合理公平的可能性就越小。

在實務層面上，如果內部關係是或者被認為是會造成偏袒，這也可能造成實際困難。例如，對於大多數僱主想要避免某個人決定他們伴侶獎金的情況，應該採取明智有效的措施避免這種風險。

　　工作社交

雖然工作中的社交活動對鼓舞員工士氣往往很重要，但它們也構成潛在商業風險。僱主仍然可以為其僱員在非工作時間的社交活動中的行為(包括任何騷擾行為)承擔法律責任。沒有僱主可以消除這種風險，但他們可以通過明確的政策、訓練和對抱怨的嚴肅處理使風險最小化。

僱主在每個工作場所或者每個部門都將受到挑戰。然而，清楚地意識到他們在工作場所發展任何形式的個人關係所導致的潛在問題，並能迅速公平的處理對僱主來説是很關鍵的。