Audit for Whom? Time to Review Roles of Independent Auditors in Hong Kong

The Hong Kong government has been reforming its laws regarding accounting practices in recent years, to pre-empt problems similar to that of Enron. It correctly recognizes an opportunity to enhance and distinguish the financial system in Hong Kong and create a competitive advantage for Hong Kong. The sixty-five billion dollar question is: what is the right approach for accounting practice reform? One obvious approach is to model reform after the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX). The SOX increases personal liabilities of senior management and introduces extremely cumbersome compliance processes (s 3 (b)(ix) of Minutes of Bills Committee of Financial Reporting Council Bill. (19 July 2005)). While this approach may be the right move for the United States, because rescuing investor confidence is paramount, a similar approach may not be optimal for Hong Kong. Hong Kong relies, to a great degree, on foreign investments and a heavy-handed approach may scare investments away (Charles E. Schumer &; Michael R. Bloomberg To Save New York, Learn from London, Wall Street Journal 1 Nov 2006). This paper, argues that failure of independent auditors was mainly caused by bad incentives. In particular, auditors were hired by and responsible to the management of companies. Thus, there is no surprise that auditors were less diligent in finding problems caused by management. Furthermore, proposing of an alternate to the SOA’s approach. Specifically, a new legal approach should be enforced that allows shareholders to sue auditors when failure to uncover accounting issues causes loss of shareholders’ values.     

On the Tort of Negligence in Common Law Legal System

It is difficult for judicial practitioners to determine the liability of tort of negligence due to the fact that it has not been specially stipulated in the provisions of the Tort Liability Law or other civil laws and regulations in China. On the contrary, the principles of tort of negligence in common law legal system have been refined in judicial practice and provided the corresponding solution for determining the liability of tort of negligence. The author believes that the empirical research on the tort of negligence in common law legal system will help us to further strengthen the understanding and application of the Tort Liability Law in China. This article thus comprehensively surveys and researches the tort of negligence from the perspective of common law legal system.     

构建信赖利益损害赔偿责任的思考

信赖利益是指法律行为中,一方当事人基于合理信赖所具有的一种既有利益。这种利益可以体现为财产上的利益,也可以表现为法律行为上的机会性利益。我国现行法律在信赖利益的保护方面存在有诸多不足,我们需要建立这样一种责任制度:既能全面保护法律行为中合理信赖人的利益,又能使双方当事人之间的利益平衡符合公平正义。这种制度便是以保护信赖利益为主要目的信赖利益损害赔偿责任制度。信赖利益损害赔偿责任是有别于缔约过失责任、违约责任与侵权责任的一种独立的责任形式。     

试论对弱势群体型业务过失犯罪的处罚

对业务过失犯罪处罚孰轻孰重,进行统一的考虑是不合理的,应当在业务过失犯罪内区分弱势群体型业务过失犯罪和一般业务过失犯罪后,加以分别讨论;弱势群体型业务过失犯罪这一概念有其存在的必要性;对一般业务过失犯罪应该适用较重的处罚;对弱势群体型业务过失犯罪应该适用较轻的处罚.     

轻伤害案件中特异体质介入的刑法分析——以中日立法·判例·学说比较为视点

对特异体质介入的轻伤害事案的分析,可以归结于特异体质介入下的刑法因果关系的认定和行为人是否应对加重结果即被害人死亡存在过失这样两个方面。在因果关系的认定上,较判例一贯采取的条件说之立场,折中的相当因果关系说更具妥当性。此外,从责任主义的角度出发,肯定行为人对加重结果即被害人死亡存在过失,也应当是合理的。最后,从我国刑法第264条对故意伤害致人死亡的罪刑配置来看,既有的司法实践做法不利于被告人人权的保障,故而亟待改变。     

侵犯商业秘密罪罪过形式探讨

97刑法修订后,新增加了侵犯商业秘密罪,但是关于侵犯商业秘密罪的罪过形式,是故意还是过失,争议较大,从而直接影响到司法实践中对本罪的正确认定和处理,妨碍了刑法社会保障功能的正常发挥。本文在比较分析各种学说后认为,无论是从法律逻辑,还是从过失犯罪罪行法定的角度,该罪的罪过形式只能是故意而不能包括过失。     

Conduct and its Consequences: Attempts at Debiasing Jury Judgments

Jurors in negligence cases are supposed to judge a defendant by the reasonableness of his or her conduct and not by the consequences of that conduct. But several studies have shown that a cognitive heuristic known as hindsight bias can skew post hoc judgments of some prior behavior. Thus, jurors who must evaluate the actions of a defendant may be influenced inappropriately by the consequences of those actions. A complementary problem arises when jurors must evaluate the injuries incurred by the plaintiff. Here, jurors' knowledge about the defendant's allegedly negligent conduct can proactively influence their assessment of the plaintiff's injuries and determination of damages. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effectiveness of two procedural techniques intended to reduce or eliminate the impact of hindsight bias in negligence cases—multiple admonitions from a judge about the proper use of evidence—and bifurcation (actually withholding irrelevant evidence from jurors). We presented a re-enacted automobile negligence trial to 355 jury-eligible adults drawn from the community, varied the evidence and instructions that they heard, and measured liability judgments and damage awards from individual jurors both before and after deliberating, and from juries. Results showed that admonitions were generally ineffective in guiding jurors to the proper use of evidence but that bifurcation was relatively more effective. Deliberations had no curative effect on jurors' misapplication of evidence.     

知情同意原则下医疗过失损害赔偿责任的几个问题--从一起患者知情同意纠纷案说起

知情同意原则所保护的客体是自我决定权.知情同意原则下的损害赔偿责任不同于医疗事故损害赔偿责任.二者不能互相否认.医方违反知情同意原则的责任是一种侵权损害赔偿责任.该责任的构成要件可包括(1)医师存在法定的告知义务;(2)医师未能将对患者的决定产生实质性影响的风险/信息告知患者;(3)在告知不充分的情况下,患者由于选择了当前的治疗方案而受到伤害;(4)医师的义务违反与患者的伤害之间存在因果关系.其中,告知义务是否充分的判断应以处于同样情境的一个理性患者所需作为主要的标准;对信息"实质性"的判定应看一个与患者处于同一位置的合理审慎之人在决定是否对所建议的治疗做出同意时会对某一事实赋加重要性或将该事实作为一"决定性"影响因素加以考虑;在因果关系存无的认定上,则要考虑若患者被充分告知实情他是否会做出不同的选择决定.     

论交通肇事罪中的“因逃逸致人死亡”

在对刑法第133条交通肇事罪中"因逃逸致人死亡"的理解上,刑法理论及实务界存在着诸多分歧与争议.文章从主客观相结合的解释论立场出发,对该规定可能的语义内涵和罪过形式进行了深入的剖析,并在此基础上,对司法实践中相关情形的定罪量刑作出了分门别类的澄清.     

The Principle of Full Compensation in Tort Law

According to the principle of full compensation, tort law seeks to put the victim in the position he was in before the tort. This position is generally considered to be the situation where the victim does not suffer any harm at all. We consider an alternative interpretation. If an injurer takes due care, the victim is faced with expected harm. This can be considered the victim's expected harm in the situation he was in before the tort. Thus conceived full compensation requires a negligent injurer to pay damages which bring the (potential) victim ex ante in the same position as the victim was in the case where the (potential) injurer takes due care. We investigate the consequences of this restated negligence rule. For due care levels larger than efficient care, the standard negligent rule may lead to excessive care, whereas the restated negligent rule always leads to efficient care. Furthermore, the activity level under the restated negligent rule is greater than the activity level under the standard negligent rule, which itself is greater than the efficient activity level. Social welfare under the restated negligence rule can either be higher or lower than social welfare under the standard negligence rule.