AICPA、フォレンジック会計サービス基準を公表（JofAより）

AICPA issues forensic accounting standards

米国公認会計士協会（AICPA）が、フォレンジック会計サービスに関する会員向けの基準を公表したという記事。

訴訟サービスや調査サービスを提供する会員向けの正式な指針（authoritative guidance）とのことです。「訴訟」や「調査」の定義や、クライアントの関係に関する主要な検討事項や、会員が提供できるサービスの限界などについて、定めているそうです。

The AICPA on Wednesday issued new professional standards for members who perform forensic accounting services engagements.

The Statement on Standards for Forensic Services No. 1 (SSFS 1) provides authoritative guidance for AICPA members providing litigation and investigative services. Specifically, the statement defines litigation and investigation for accounting purposes, outlines key considerations for client and provider relationships, and establishes boundaries on the services members can provide.

STATEMENT ON STANDARDS FOR FORENSIC SERVICES（AICPA）（PDFファイル）

The term forensic is defined as “used in, or suitable to, courts of law or public debate.” Forensic accounting services generally involve the application of specialized knowledge and investigative skills by a member3 to collect, analyze, and evaluate certain evidential matter and to interpret and communicate findings (forensic services).

The FVS Executive Committee has issued this standard to protect the public interest by preserving and enhancing the quality of practice of a member performing forensic services. Practice aids and other guidance issued at the direction of the FVS Executive Committee continue to serve as nonauthoritative guidance on the application of professional standards. Authoritative standards and nonauthoritative guidance are not a substitute for the use of professional judgment.

全4ページの簡単なものですが、既存の行為規範（日本の会計士協会のルールでいえば倫理規則など）と関連づけて規定しているようです。また、この基準のほかに、さまざまなツールや指針が既に公表済みのようです。それらは、今後、基準を適用する際の nonauthoritativeな指針として使われるとのことです。

日本の会計士協会にも、不正調査に関するガイドライン（経営研究調査会研究報告第51号「不正調査ガイドライン」）があり、充実した内容のものですが、研究報告という位置づけであり、強制力はなさそうです。また、会計士の誠実性や独立性についてふれているものの、強制力ある協会倫理規則への参照は不十分かもしれません。

具体的にどのような規定があるか例を挙げると．．．

7. A member must serve his or her client with integrity and objectivity, as required by the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. A member performing forensic services should not subordinate his or her opinion to that of any other party

10. The ultimate decision regarding the occurrence of fraud is determined by a trier of fact;therefore, a member performing forensic services is prohibited from opining regarding the ultimate conclusion of fraud. This does not apply when the member is the trier of fact. A member may provide expert opinions relating to whether evidence is consistent with certain elements of fraud or other laws based on objective evaluation.

当サイトの関連記事（日本公認会計士協会の「近年の不正調査に関する課題と提言」について）