文 /梧桐小编 （一）存货审计程序方面：一是审定受托研发成本未执行细节测试、项目进度复核等程序。二是研发费 用的审计调整无支撑资料。三是存货跌价准备测算不准确、依据不充分。 （二）货币资金审计程序方面：未执行银行流水与日记账的双向核查。 （三）长期资产审计程序方面：一是部分长期股权投资存在减值迹象但未进行减值测试，且未记录不减 值的考虑因素。二是部分应收账款预期信用损失率的依据不充分。三是2024年公司确认固定资产 997.58万元，但相关设备已于3年前验收运转正常，审计未获取充分证据证明转固时点的准确性，涉及 金额超过实际执行的重要性水平。 （四）监盘程序方面：一是未关注部分原辅料盘亏的原因且未实施进一步审计程序。二是部分在建工程 的监盘结论与审计调整相悖。三是部分在建工程的监盘日非资产负债表日，审计未关注监盘日至资产负 债表日的在建工程进度并获取支撑资料。 （五）商誉审计程序方面：一是未对管理层聘请的评估机构和评估人员的胜任能力、专业素质、客观性 等进行了解、评价。二是未评价包含商誉资产组范围的合理性。三是未对管理层的盈利预测、折现率等 关键指标执行分析程序。 （六）收入审计程序方面：一是未关注部分货物签 ...

文/梧桐小编 12月22日，四川证监局公布《关于对信永中和会计师事务所（特殊普通合伙）及相关人员采取出具警示函措施的决定》。四川证监局对该所执行的成都运达科技 股份有限公司（300440）2020年、2022年财务报表审计项目有关执业情况进行了检查。经查，该所在审计执业中存在以下问题。一、风险评估和控制测试方面： 一是2020年财务报表审计未基于收入确认存在舞弊风险的假定，具体评价哪些类型的收入、收入交易或认定导致舞弊风险。二是2022年财务报表审计未按计划了 解、评价与商誉减值测试相关的内部控制。二、实质性程序方面：2020年收入、预计负债、函证等审计不到位。一是未就部分收入确认获取关键审计证据，如未 就子公司四川汇友电气有限公司2020年贸易业务采用"总额法"确认收入的恰当性获取充分适当的审计证据等。二是未汇总评价超过微小错报临界值的预计负债会 计处理错误。三是未对部分函证保持控制，未能恰当应对回函不符事项。2022年部分子公司商誉减值、固定资产减值等审计不到位。一是对北京运达华开科技有 限公司100%股权对应的商誉计算存在错误，对商誉减值测试的参数复核不到位等。二是未就固定资产是否存在减值获取充分适当的 ...

文 /旋风 12月19日，深交所公布了对大信会计师事务所（特殊普通合伙）及签字注册会计师王进、崔会强给予 纪律处分的决定。 经查明，大信所及上述注册会计师在华讯方舟股份有限公司（已退市））2016年、 2017年的审计工作中均未勤勉尽责，导致2016年、2017年审计报告存在虚假记载。 王进、崔会强作 为华讯方舟2016年、2017年年度审计报告的签字注册会计师，是直接负责的主管人员。 基于此，深交所对 王进、崔会强给予公开谴责的处分，对大信所给予通报批评处分。 2023年，大信所及2名会计师就因在华讯方舟2018 年年报审计执业中存在多处问题收到深交所的监管 函。 当事人： 大信会计师事务所（特殊普通合伙），华讯方舟股份有限公司2016 年、2017年年度财务报表审计 机构，住所：北京市海淀区； 王 进 ，华讯方舟股份有限公司2016年、2017年审计报告签字注册会计师； 崔会强 ，华讯方舟股份有限公司2016年、2017年审计报告签字注册会计师。 根据中国证券监督管理委员会河北监管局《行政处罚决定书》（〔2024〕29号、〔2024〕30号、 〔2024〕31号）查明的事实，大信会计师事务所（特殊普通合伙 ...

Core Viewpoint - The cancellation of Yongtuo Accounting Firm's qualification to provide securities services has significant implications for the market, leading to a wave of companies changing their auditing firms and potential loss of clients for Yongtuo [2][4][6]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - On December 16, the Ministry of Finance and the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) announced the cancellation of Yongtuo Accounting Firm's registration for securities services due to serious deficiencies in their auditing work [2][4]. - Yongtuo was found to have engaged in fraudulent activities during audits for companies like Hongda Xingye, including fabricating audit adjustments and altering financial statements [6][5]. Group 2: Market Reactions - Following the regulatory actions, approximately 20 listed companies initiated the process to change their auditing firms this year, with 9 of these changes occurring in December alone [2][8]. - Notably, two of Yongtuo's clients, *ST Shengxun and *ST Jingang, announced their decision to switch to other accounting firms on December 15 [8]. Group 3: Financial Impact - Yongtuo's total revenue for 2024 was reported at 323 million yuan, with securities business revenue accounting for 131 million yuan [8]. - The firm had 30 listed company clients at the end of 2024, primarily in the pharmaceutical and specialized equipment manufacturing sectors [8]. Group 4: Client Transition - As of December 16, 12 other accounting firms have taken over Yongtuo's clients, with Zhongshen Zhonghuan Accounting Firm taking the most, handling 6 clients [9]. - The loss of clients is compounded by a significant reduction in Yongtuo's workforce, with a decrease of nearly 16% in registered accountants, from 350 to 295 [9].

Core Viewpoint - Jiangsu Securities Regulatory Bureau has imposed penalties on Yongtuo Accounting Firm for failing to perform due diligence, resulting in false records in audit reports and verification reports [1][2][3] Group 1: Penalties and Financial Impact - Yongtuo Accounting Firm is ordered to rectify its practices, with a total of 811 million yuan in business income confiscated and a fine of 57.17 million yuan imposed [1][3] - The firm is prohibited from engaging in securities service business due to its violations [3] Group 2: Specific Violations - In the audit of Hongda Xingye, Yongtuo failed to exercise due diligence, issuing unqualified audit reports despite knowing significant issues existed [1][2] - For Hengjiu Technology, the firm did not maintain professional skepticism and failed to properly assess financial fraud risks during the audit process [2] - In the audit of Kelin Environmental Protection, Yongtuo did not adequately understand internal controls related to revenue and failed to execute appropriate control tests, leading to significant deficiencies in substantive audit procedures [3]

近日，江苏证监局公布了一则罚单。 永拓会计师事务所（特殊普通合伙）（下称永拓所）在执业过程中，未勤勉尽责，出具的年度审计报告、募集 资金年度存放与使用情况鉴证报告存在虚假记载等。证监局决定责令永拓所改正，没收业务收入811万元，处 以5717万元罚款，禁止永拓所从事证券服务业务。 据悉，永拓会计师事务所（特殊普通合伙）是鸿达兴业2020年至2022年年度、恒久科技2019年至2021年年度、 科林环保 2021年年度财务报表审计机构，鸿达兴业2020年至2021年募集资金年度存放与使用情况鉴证机构。 经查明，当事人存在以下违法事实。在鸿达兴业年度报告审计及其他鉴证执业项目中，永拓所未勤勉尽责，出 具的鸿达兴业2020年至2022年年度审计报告、2020年度和2021年度募集资金年度存放与使用情况鉴证报告存在 虚假记载。 永拓所鸿达兴业项目组成员配合鸿达兴业造假，永拓所明知鸿达兴业存在重大问题、审计执业存在重大缺陷， 仍出具无保留意见的审计报告、无保留结论的其他鉴证报告，未客观、公正执业，审计独立性严重缺失。永拓 所审计程序存在重大缺陷。项目质量控制复核存在重大缺陷。 在恒久科技年度报告审计执业项目中，永拓所未 ...

此前，证监会已于6月5日对相关方作出行政处罚： 责 令大信所改正，没收业务收入约339.62万元，并处罚款950万元；对郭安静给予警 告并罚款60万元；对陈伟、朱策明给予警告并各罚款50万元。 此次证监会对大信所及相关注册会计师的罚没款总计达1449.62万元。 值得注意的是，2025年大信所累计已被证监会/证监局合计罚没款逾4750万元，相关处罚包括： 1、2025年6月，大信所因星星科技2019年、2020年年度财务报表审计项目违规，被中国证监会没收业务收入约339.62万元，并处罚款 950万元； 2、2025年6月，中国证监会公布对大信所的处罚决定。 大信所为广汇物流出具的2022年年度审计报告存在虚假记载， 且在对广汇物流 2022年年度财务报表审计过程中未勤勉尽责。证监会决定：对大信所没收审计业务收入169.8万元,并处以339.6万元罚款； 3、2025年3月，湖北证监局公布对大信所的处罚决定。 大信所为启迪环境出具的2017年、2018年审计报告存在虚假记载， 且在启迪环 境2017年、2018年财务报告审计过程中未勤勉尽责。湖北证监局决定：对大信所没收其审计业务收入528.30万元，并处以5 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Shenzhen Stock Exchange has imposed disciplinary actions against Da Xin Accounting Firm and its certified public accountants for significant violations during the audits of Fenghui Leasing Co., Ltd. and Jinzhou Cihang Group Co., Ltd. [1][21] Group 1: Violations Identified - Da Xin Accounting Firm issued documents with major omissions and false records, failing to disclose related party transactions during significant asset restructuring [1][21] - Jinzhou Cihang inflated operating income and total profit in 2017 and 2018, and did not disclose non-operating fund occupation related transactions [1][21] Group 2: Audit Procedures Deficiencies - Da Xin did not diligently execute audit procedures for Fenghui Leasing, failing to identify and assess related party transaction misstatement risks [3][22] - The audit documentation showed inadequate execution of procedures related to understanding and testing related party transactions [4][23] Group 3: Specific Audit Failures - The audit of accounts receivable and other current assets had deficiencies, with significant amounts not properly recorded in the financial statements [5][24] - Da Xin failed to maintain professional skepticism regarding unusual transactions, leading to insufficient audit evidence [5][24] Group 4: Disciplinary Actions - Disciplinary actions include public reprimands for accountants Cao Bin, Yan Xiumin, and Zhao Liping, and a public criticism for Da Xin Accounting Firm [14][33] - The actions were based on violations of the Shenzhen Stock Exchange's listing rules, which require diligence and accuracy in audit reports [15][31]

Core Viewpoint - The recent administrative penalties issued by the Ministry of Finance reveal serious issues within the auditing industry, including lack of auditing procedures and breaches of professional ethics, with specific cases highlighting the severity of these problems [1][3]. Group 1: Penalties and Violations - A total of 33 administrative penalties were announced, targeting 7 accounting firms and 18 certified public accountants (CPAs) for various violations [1][3]. - The most notable case involved Henan Shouzheng Innovation Accounting Firm, which was penalized for not conducting on-site audits and using materials from other firms, leading to a three-month suspension and the confiscation of over 1.3 million yuan in illegal gains [1][3]. - Beijing Xingronghua faced lighter penalties, including the confiscation of 130,000 yuan in illegal gains and a fine of 390,000 yuan, without a suspension of business qualifications [3]. Group 2: Internal Management Issues - Henan Shouzheng Innovation was found to have severe internal management flaws, being controlled by non-registered accountants and engaging in fictitious business collaborations to misappropriate income [3][4]. - The firm’s failure to execute necessary auditing procedures resulted in significant misstatements in financial reports, including a 240 million yuan inflation in operating costs for Tianma Guoyao [4]. Group 3: Professional Standards and Consequences - Core requirements for accounting firms include performing necessary audit procedures, obtaining appropriate evidence, identifying significant risks, and maintaining professional skepticism [5]. - Violations in these areas can lead to strict penalties, including business suspensions and potential criminal charges for intentional misconduct [5][6]. - The suspension of business qualifications for three months is the most severe penalty disclosed, although longer suspensions and even revocation of licenses have occurred in the past [5][6]. Group 4: Regulatory Oversight - Both the Ministry of Finance and the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) have the authority to regulate and penalize accounting firms, with the CSRC typically imposing harsher penalties due to the higher stakes involved in auditing public companies [6]. - The CSRC's focus on securities-related audits means that penalties can have a more significant impact on firms, especially when it comes to maintaining client relationships with listed companies [6][10]. Group 5: Impact of Penalties on CPAs - Fourteen CPAs were suspended from practice, with most facing three-month suspensions due to inadequate execution of audit procedures [8][9]. - The impact of a CPA's suspension is relatively limited, as they can continue working in other capacities within their firms, but the suspension of a firm's business operations has a more substantial effect [9][10]. - The duration of the suspension plays a critical role in its impact, with longer suspensions leading to potential loss of clients due to inability to deliver timely reports [10].

Core Points - The Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants imposed a fine of HKD 1.6 million on PwC and two partners due to multiple audit deficiencies related to revenue recognition for Dynasty Fine Wines in 2010 and 2011 [2][3] - The audit partner, Zheng Guang'an, failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding the revenue recorded by Dynasty Fine Wines, leading to the issuance of an unqualified opinion [2][3] - Dynasty Fine Wines, listed in Hong Kong since 2005, was previously considered one of the "three major players" in the wine industry alongside Changyu and Great Wall [2] Revenue Recognition Issues - The investigation revealed extensive deficiencies in revenue recognition during the audits for 2010 and 2011, particularly the lack of professional skepticism and adequate evidence to confirm that wine products were delivered and accepted by customers [3] - Adjustments made by Dynasty Fine Wines to correct previously misstated revenues indicated that the company should have reported losses in 2011 instead of profits, with retained earnings for 2010 and 2011 reduced by approximately HKD 225 million and HKD 262 million, respectively [3] Previous Penalties and Client Loss - This is not the first time PwC has faced penalties for revenue recognition issues; in September 2024, they were fined HKD 116 million for violations related to Evergrande's 2018 audit [4][5] - Following the penalties related to Evergrande, PwC experienced a significant loss of clients, with the number of A-share listed companies hiring them for annual audits dropping from 107 in 2023 to 29 in 2024 [4][5]