Since the Sinovision Technology (
Investors, the media, government agencies and accountancy firms involved must of course take responsibility for such incidents. But who has the greater legal responsibility? Also, is it possible for investors to receive compensation? Some explanation of certain systemic issues would seem to be in order.
Getting listed on the stock market is not something that a company can achieve in one fell swoop. First, the company must make a public offering of its shares. In the past, companies with paid-in capital of NT$200 million or more were required to make public offerings. Later that figure was raised to NT$500 million. Now public offerings have become voluntary.
Only with guidance from securities houses can the publicly issued companies get listed on the TAIEX or the TAISDAQ. Some companies either do not receive guidance from securities houses or end up breaking off their cooperation with them halfway through. This is usually because some form of corporate mischief has occurred.
If a company meets the Securities and Future Commission's dispersed ownership standards, it can raise funds by means of private, undisclosed methods. (Nominally, they are raising funds from original shareholders, employees or other specific groups.) Most commonly it is vendors of unlisted shares who broker the sales. Investors can easily be swindled because they can't see the company information.
Government agencies and investigators once cracked down on such irregularities. The government even set up an Emerging Stock Market to regulate the unlisted shares trade, but some companies have continued to sell their stocks via illegal vendors.
This of course violates the Securities Exchange Law (
In addition, lawsuits are time-consuming and do not necessarily result in the victims being compensated. Such direct share sales, like the pyramid scams of the past, have become fashionable, in the same way as investment companies were more than a decade ago. I've even had students try to sell me shares during class.
The fundamental solution is to educate investors, but technical restrictions on unlisted, publicly issued companies could also be imposed. This would involve amending Article 267 of the Company Law (公司法), Article 28-1 of the Securities Exchange Law and other related administrative decrees. It would require determination on the part of the government to face up to the problem.
From next year, unlisted, publicly issued companies will be required by law to disclose half-yearly and quarterly financial reports, both of which will have to be audited. The companies will also be required to announce monthly reports on the status of their business operations.
Also, matters that could seriously affect the interests of shareholders will be required to be made public within two days. In other words, investors will be getting more information.
Given that these companies are not monitored by the Taiwan Stock Exchange or the over-the-counter exchange and given that the authorities are understaffed and overworked, investors should still watch out for the latest information and developments at all times.
On the other hand, accountants' workloads will increase. They won't be merely endorsing the annual financial statements of unlisted, publicly issued companies.
Looking at the recent corporate scandals in the US, I worry that Taiwan may end up following in that country's footsteps. An accountant's audit must be conducted free of influence from the company being audited, but it is the company that pays the auditing fees. There is a conflict of interest inherent in this situation.
The US has faced the following issues in recent years:
One, accounting firms offer services other than auditing or advice on taxation -- including legal and financial consultation, the outsourcing of internal control work and the design and set up of financial information systems. Such services generate revenues far greater than auditing does.
Two, accountants may use in-formation obtained from companies for their own private ends -- engaging in insider trading, for example -- and even when such actions are not illegal, they still amount to taking advantage of their clients. The conflict of interest is obvious.
Third, the independent US organizations that issue accounting statements and set accounting standards are to some extent influenced by the country's five biggest accounting firms. As a result, there is great flexibility in the application of such standards to companies. Enron was a classic example. Close cooperation between companies and accounting firms has rendered financial reports incapable of reflecting reality.
Such excesses and irregularities forced the US Congress to set up a semi-official organization to oversee accounting firms last month, when it was drafting the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. It imposed strict controls comparable to those on chartered companies and revoking the powers of independent accounting organizations to set accounting standards. The outcome was a major blow to the proud profession of accountancy.
The authorities should think about how to balance the powers and responsibilities of accountants. To oblige accountants to endorse a company's financial forecasts, for example, is a little hard on the accountants. Under Article 36 of the Securities Exchange Law, accountants bear no civil liability for defects in their audit of financial reports and the question of whether accountant's should be liable in tort law (civil law) under the Civil Code remains controversial and unresolved.
As a result, no court has either ordered any accountant in recent years to pay compensation or found any accountant liable under the criminal law for problems with corporate financial statements that they endorsed.
A law has been passed to protect securities investors and futures traders, but it has yet to take effect. The so-called safeguarding institutions are still under construction. Guarantees for lawsuits by people investing in unlisted shares have not yet taken shape. We can only depend on vigorous investigations by prosecutors.
Material evidence is very important in dealing with white-collar crime. We should never allow a repeat of what happened to Arthur Andersen, Enron's accounting firm, which managed to destroy documents related to the Enron case.
All told, investor ignorance is the main factor behind the many fraud cases coming to light, but these cases have also revealed systemic defects. Improvements depend on the government's strategies and determination.
Yie Ming-chiu is an assistant professor in the department of business administration at Shih Chien University.
Translated by Francis Huang
With each passing day, the threat of a People’s Republic of China (PRC) assault on Taiwan grows. Whatever one’s view about the history, there is essentially no question that a PRC conquest of Taiwan would mark the end of the autonomy and freedom enjoyed by the island’s 23 million people. Simply put, the PRC threat to Taiwan is genuinely existential for a free, democratic and autonomous Taiwan. Yet one might not know it from looking at Taiwan. For an island facing a threat so acute, lethal and imminent, Taiwan is showing an alarming lack of urgency in dramatically strengthening its defenses.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
As Taiwan’s only national university research institute focused on indigenous cultures, it is incredibly regrettable that students from National Dong Hwa University (NDHU) have continued the horrible history of Taichung Municipal Taichung First Senior High School and National Taiwan University by expressing harmful, discriminatory views and writing defamatory statements against an indigenous university department. Hiding behind anonymous usernames, people have written online about indigenous students from the NDHU College of Indigenous Studies being allowed to light fires in a farmhouse next to the school’s experimental millet fields. The posters bemoan how students in other programs are somehow not permitted to light