Regulating against False Corporate Accounting: Does the Companies Act 71 of 2008 Have Sufficient Teeth?

E. Olivier
{"title":"Regulating against False Corporate Accounting: Does the Companies Act 71 of 2008 Have Sufficient Teeth?","authors":"E. Olivier","doi":"10.47348/samlj/v33/i1a1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article questions whether the enforcement mechanisms in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) are adequate deterrents to financial reporting misconduct and whether they provide suitable sanctions to punish wrongdoers. The South African regulatory approach to company directors and financial reporting compliance places great emphasis on stakeholder protection and board accountability. By criminalising the publication of false financial statements, providing civil remedies to prejudiced stakeholders and robust protection for whistleblowers, empowering regulatory agencies to investigate allegations of accounting fraud and penalise transgressors, and by creating a broad net of liability for corporate decision-makers who allow or cause the publication of false financial reporting, the Act takes a firm stance that accounting fraud must be discouraged. The Act’s enforcement mechanisms in respect of financial reporting are commendable, but detection and enforcement will likely remain challenging unless a concerted effort is made to educate the public about financial reporting misconduct and its dangers, sufficient funding is provided to the regulatory agencies, consistent use is made of the available criminal, civil, and administrative remedies, and Parliament reconsiders the appropriateness of the maximum penalties for accounting fraud.","PeriodicalId":118675,"journal":{"name":"South African Mercantile Law Journal","volume":"91 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Mercantile Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/samlj/v33/i1a1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article questions whether the enforcement mechanisms in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) are adequate deterrents to financial reporting misconduct and whether they provide suitable sanctions to punish wrongdoers. The South African regulatory approach to company directors and financial reporting compliance places great emphasis on stakeholder protection and board accountability. By criminalising the publication of false financial statements, providing civil remedies to prejudiced stakeholders and robust protection for whistleblowers, empowering regulatory agencies to investigate allegations of accounting fraud and penalise transgressors, and by creating a broad net of liability for corporate decision-makers who allow or cause the publication of false financial reporting, the Act takes a firm stance that accounting fraud must be discouraged. The Act’s enforcement mechanisms in respect of financial reporting are commendable, but detection and enforcement will likely remain challenging unless a concerted effort is made to educate the public about financial reporting misconduct and its dangers, sufficient funding is provided to the regulatory agencies, consistent use is made of the available criminal, civil, and administrative remedies, and Parliament reconsiders the appropriateness of the maximum penalties for accounting fraud.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
监管虚假公司会计:2008年第71号公司法有足够的效力吗?
本文质疑2008年《公司法》第71号的执行机制是否足以威慑财务报告不当行为,以及它们是否提供适当的制裁措施来惩罚违法者。南非对公司董事和财务报告合规的监管方法非常强调利益相关者保护和董事会问责制。通过将发布虚假财务报表定为刑事犯罪,为受偏见的利益相关者提供民事救济,并为举报人提供强有力的保护,授权监管机构调查会计欺诈指控并惩罚违规者,并为允许或导致发布虚假财务报告的公司决策者建立广泛的责任网,该法案坚定地表明,必须阻止会计欺诈。该法案在财务报告方面的执行机制是值得赞扬的,但检测和执行可能仍然具有挑战性,除非共同努力教育公众财务报告不当行为及其危险,向监管机构提供足够的资金,一致使用现有的刑事、民事和行政补救措施,以及议会重新考虑对会计欺诈的最高处罚的适当性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Regulation of False Advertising in South Africa: An Analysis of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 and Self-Regulation Case Notes: Interdicting a disciplinary enquiry: Golding v HCI Managerial Services (Pty) Ltd (2015) 36 ILJ 1098 (LC) Revisited Reinstatement in the Context of ‘Deemed Dismissal’: A Critical Analysis of Recent Case Law Accountability in the twin peaks model of financial regulation in South Africa The Impact of Cryptocurrencies on the General Powers and Duties of South African Insolvency Practitioners
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1