 |
当前位置：首页 >> 个人服务 >> 预览个人简历信息 提醒：任何一种简历保密设置，都不会影响您在线投递简历。 |
|
| 个人信息 |
| 姓 名： |
赵译员 [编号]:3879 |
性 别： |
女 |
|
| 擅长专业： |
商务英语 |
出生年月： |
1987/10/1 |
|
| 民 族： |
汉族 |
所在地区： |
山东 临沂 |
|
| 文化程度： |
本科 |
所学专业： |
英语 |
|
| 毕业时间： |
2010 |
毕业学校： |
山东财经大学 |
|
| 第一外语： |
英语 |
等级水平： |
专业八级 |
|
|
| 口译等级： |
中级 |
工作经历： |
2 年 |
|
|
| 翻译库信息 |
| 可翻译语种： |
英语 |
|
|
| 目前所在地： |
山东 临沂 |
| 可提供服务类型： |
笔译 |
| 每周可提供服务时间： |
每天均有时间 |
| 证书信息 |
| 证书名称： |
TEM-8 |
|
| 获证时间： |
2010/7/1 |
|
| 获得分数： |
良 |
|
|
| 工作经历 |
| 工作时期： |
2012/7/1--2013/1/1 |
|
| 公司名称： |
信益达翻译有限公司 |
|
| 公司性质： |
民营企业 |
| 所属行业： |
翻译 |
| 所在部门： |
翻译部 |
|
| 职位： |
译员 |
| 自我评价： |
笔译基本功扎实，喜欢看一些翻译方面的书籍。并且有一定的翻译经验，尤其是关于商务类的。 |
|
|
| 笔译案例信息 |
| 案例标题： |
comparison of internal control systems |
|
| 原文： |
In China, “Internal Control and Audit Risk” was promulgated in 1997 to implement auditing standards. Also, the Bank of China promulgated “The Guiding Principles of Strengthening the Internal Controls of Financial Institutions " in May 1997. In 1999, Section 27 of the revised "Accounting Law" put forward certain requirements of the internal control system, such as position separation, authorization approval, property control and internal auditing. In 2006, the Ministry of Finance, the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, China Securities Regulatory Commission, China Insurance Regulatory Commission, China Banking Regulatory Commission, and the Audit Commission, established the National Internal Control Standards Committee. In March 2007, they promulgated the basic guidelines of internal control. In June 2008, the Ministry of Finance and four other ministries and committees, promulgated "Basic Norms of Internal Control". These norms was implemented among listed companies on July 1, 2009 to encourage its implementation in non-listed medium-sized enterprises (Zhu, 2009, p. 9). On April 26, 2010, the Ministry of Finance, China Securities Regulatory Commission, Audit Commission, China Banking Regulatory Commission, and China Insurance Regulatory Commission established “The Guidelines for the Internal Control of Companies”, which contains: “Application Guidelines for the Internal Control of Companies”, “Evaluation Guidelines for the Internal Control of companies”, and “Auditing Guidelines for the Internal Control of Companies”. The promulgation of “Basic Norms of Internal Control” and “The Guidelines for the Internal Control of Companies” marked the establishment of internal controls in companies in China. To improve the set up of the internal control system in listed companies, the Ministry of Finance and four other commissions established a timetable for the internal control system’s implementation. The internal control system will first be implemented in listed companies on January 1, 2011, and will expand to listed companies on the Shanghai Stock Exchange and Shenzhen Stock Exchange on January 1, 2012. Based on this, it will be carried out in the companies randomly. Meanwhile, the advance implementation of the large and medium enterprises will be encouraged (White Paper, 2010).
In wake of this trend, comparing the internal control systems between countries may hold some significance. Following, we first introduce the legislative background of the internal control system in Japan, then briefly introduce the legal system of internal controls in Japan, and finally compare the legal systems of internal controls in China and Japan.
1. The Legislative Background of the Internal Control System in Japan
In the past, Japanese Corporate Law scholars were in general agreement that internal controls are a management system determined independently by the company manager. Moreover, there was no fixed form for setting up the internal control system, and it did not require law (Japan Association of Corporate Directors, 2008, p. 61). But this viewpoint fundamentally changed after the Daiwa Bank judgment in 2000. An employee at the New York branch of Daiwa Bank conducted financial business that resulted in a loss of about 1.1 billion U.S. dollars. Daiwa Bank concealed the incident from the U.S. authorities, which resulted in a $340 million fine. Later, in Japan, Daiwa Bank shareholders, considering this a violation of the bank’s obligation to establish an internal control system, filed a shareholder lawsuit. The court ruled that the directors of the New York branch, the Inspection Department Directors, and the auditors, who were obligated to supervise the New York branch, had all violated the obligation to establish an internal control system, and it ordered the 11 directors to pay $775 million USD as compensation. The judicial precedent set by this ruling had a huge impact on the Japanese economic world. The economic sector later called on political field to amend "Commercial Law", which after it was amended, saw an increase in sections relating to director liabilities, thereby limiting the duties of directors. In another case, case of the Kobe Steel, Ltd., the court considered that the functions in large enterprises are extremely different, making it hard for directors to grasp the situation of the other directors or employees. In this situation, the directors should set up an internal control system to maintain normal management. It was ruled that it is the directors’ obligation to establish an internal control system. These two judicial precedents set the foundation for the internal control system. In addition to these judicial precedents, the Tokyo Stock Exchange has its own regulations relating to internal controls. After January 2005, listed companies on the Tokyo Stock Exchange were required to submit a letter confirming the accuracy of the Securities Report and Mid-term Report records. The recorded contents of a Securities Report are the company’s name, the situation with the enterprise group that owns the company, its financial situation, and other important business related issues (Kobayashi, 2007, p. 51). This approach was drawn from "Financial Instruments and Exchange Law."
As mentioned above, although the internal control system regulations were not legislated in Japan, they existed as a judicial precedent or in the form of the stock exchange’s regulations. Currently, "Corporate Law" and "Financial Products Exchange Law" also stipulates the internal control system. The main background of these two laws stipulating an internal control system was the Seibu Railway Company submitting false records in their securities report in 2004. In 2003, the Legislative Council’s sub-council on corporate law released “Draft Outline for the Modernization of Corporate Law". The draft did not include content on internal control, but following the Seibu Railway scandal, it did (Kobayashi, 2007, p. 42). According to the regulations of the Japanese stock exchange, if the shares of the 10 largest shareholders of a listed company exceed 80% of the total shares, the company will be delisted from the market. The largest shareholder in Seibu Railway is Kokudo Company. To avoid delisting, for a long time, Seibu Railway faked shares held by individuals, and submitted false records in their securities report in June 2004, which were later discovered. To avoid delisting, and to follow the regulations of Stock Exchange, the Kokudo Company chairman made the false records public after selling some of Seibu Railway shares. In August 2004, in the meeting of Seibu Railway's directors, auditors raised the problem and the board of directors also demanded investigating Kokudo, but Kokudo exerted pressure on them. When the general manager of Seibu Railway Company in Kokudo asked Seibu Railway Company to sell its shares held by Kokudo, he thought this was akin to insider trading and refused, but Kokudo made the deal anyway. After legal examination, the court held that the chairman of Kokudo, Kokudo, and Seibu Railway Company had all violated the "Securities and Exchange Law" because of the insider trading. The court fined the chairman of Kokudo 2 million yen and sentenced him to a suspended term of imprisonment. Kokudo was fined 150 million yen and Seibu Railway Company was fined 200 million yen. Seibu Railway Company was delisted in December 2004 (Ootani, 2007, p. 268). In this case, although Seibu Railway Company’s the auditors and directors felt that there may be some problems, the heads of the parent company had the power to act illegally. Some people hold the following two points about false records problem: (1) the internal control system was not effective; (2) compared with the foreign corporate scandals, it took too short a time to evaluate internal controls during the financial examination (Japan Association of Corporate Directors, 2008, p. 90).Japan’s "Corporate Law" and "Financial Instruments and Exchange Law" stipulate some contents of the internal control system because of the Seibu Railway scandal, so we believe that this event has greatly impacted the legislation of internal controls in Japan. In addition to the Seibu Railway scandal, the legislative background of the internal control system is the publication of "Corporate Law" in 2005. The new "Corporate Law" expanded the freedom of companies, meaning that opportunities to abuse power increased. Inhibiting the abuse of power needs companies to strengthen internal controls, which may be one of the reasons for the strengthening the internal controls in Japan.
|
|
| 译文： |
1997年中国颁布了《内部控制和审计风险》用来实施审核标准。同年5月份中国人民银行也制定了《加强金融机构的内部控制指导原则》。1999年修订后的《会计法》第27条中，就对企业内部控制制度提出了一定的要求，包括职责分割制度，重要事项的决策和执行的程序制度，财产清查制度和内部审计制度。2006年，财政部，国务院国有资产监督管理委员会，中国证券监督管理委员会，中国保险监督管理委员会，中国银行业监督管理委员会以及审计署共同成立了企业内部控制标准委员会。2007年3月，他们共同颁布了企业内部控制的基本原则。2008年6月，财政部，证监会，审计署，银监会，保监会联合发布了《企业内部控制的基本规范》。基本规范自2009年7月1日起先在上市公司范围内施行，鼓励非上市的其他大中型企业执行（Zhu,2009,p. 9). 2010年4月26号，财政部,证监会，审计署，银监会，保监会联合发布了《企业内部控制配套指引》。该配套指引包括《公司内部控制基本规范》，《企业内部控制评价指引》和《企业内部控制审计指引》。连同此前发布的《企业内部控制基本规范》和《企业内部控制指引》标志着我国企业内部控制规范体系的基本建成。为了提高建立上市公司内部控制制度，财政部和其余四家委员会制定了内部控制制度的实施方案时间表。自2011年1月起，内部控制制度将率先在上市公司施行，2012年1月1日将扩大到在上海证券交易所和深圳证券交易所主板上市的公司施行。在此基础上，择机在中小板和创业板上市公司施行；同时，鼓励非上市大中型企业提前执行（白皮书，2010）。
这一趋势之后，国家之间的内部控制制度的比较具有一定的意义。下面我们首先介绍日本的内部控制制度的立法背景，然后简要介绍一下日本内部控制的立法体系，最后对中国和日本内部控制立法系统进行比较。
1. 日本内部控制系统的立法背景
过去日本的公司法律学学者普遍地认为公司的内部控制是一个独立的管理系统，由公司经理独立决定。此外，建立内部控制制度并没有固定的形式，也不需要法律（日本企业董事协会，2008，p.61). 但是这一观点在2000年日本大和银行诉讼案件后得到彻底的改变。大和银行驻纽约分行的一名员工在账外从事金融业务，是该银行蒙受了11亿美元的巨额损失。大和银行向美国当局隐藏了这一事件，致使受到了340万美元的罚款。之后，日本大和银行的股票持有者认为这是违反了银行的应尽义务，从而考虑建立内部控制体系，提起股东诉讼。法院裁定纽约分行的总经理，以及该银行的其他董事和监事违反了建立企业内部控制制度的应尽义务，并且对11董事处以7.75亿美元的损害赔偿金。大和银行案的判决对日本的经济界产生了巨大的影响。之后经济部门呼吁政治部门修订《商法》，修订之后的法案增加了有关董事责任的部分，从而限制了董事的权利。在另一起案件中，神户制钢的事件，法院认为大型企业中的功能是及其与众不同的，很难让管理者掌握其余董事和员工的情况。在这种情况下管理者应该建立一个内部控制体系来维持日常的管理。普遍认为建立内部控制制度是管理者的义务。这两起司法先例为内部控制制度的形成奠定了基础。除了这两起司法先例，东京证券交易所也有自己的内部控制管理规章。在2005年1月，在东京证券交易所主板上市的公司都必须提交一份函件用来确认证券报告和中期报告的记录的准确性。证券报告所记录的内容包括公司名称，控股集团的状况，公司的财务状况，以及其他的重要相关事项。（小林，2007，p.51）。这种方法是根据《金融商品交易法》得出的。
正如上文所述，尽管内部控制制度管理条例在日本不是以立法形式出现的，但是它作为一个司法惯例或者证券交易所中的规定而存在。目前，《公司法》和《金融商品交易法》对内部控制制度都有明文规定。这两部规定内部控制制定的法律所形成的背景就是2004年西武铁道公司在他们的证券报告中提交虚假的记载。立法委员会的公司法分会发布了《现代企业法纲要》。草案制定之前并没有内部控制的具体内容，但是继西武铁道丑闻事件之后，将此项内容添加上。（小林，2007，p.42）.根据日本证券交易所的规定，如果某上市公司的前十位股东持有股票额超过公司股份总额的80%，那么此公司将会被退市。西武铁道公司最大的股东是国道公司。为了避免退市，西武铁道很长一段时间里伪造个人持有股份，并且2004年6月在证券报告中提交虚假记录，这一事件随后被发现。为了避免退市以及符合交易所的规定，国道公司董事长出售一部分西武铁道股份，随后公开了虚假记录。在2004年8月的董事会上，审计师提出这个问题，董事会并且要求对国道进行调查，但是国道对西武铁道施加压力。当国道的西武铁道公司的总经理要求卖掉西武铁道公司持有的国道公司的股份是，他认为这是类似于内幕交易，并且予以拒绝，但是国道还是进行了交易。经法院审查，法院任务国道公司董事长，国道公司和西武铁道公司都因从事内幕交易而违反了《证券交易法》。最终法院处国道公司董事长200万日元的罚金并判其短期监禁，判处国道公司1.5亿日元罚金，西武铁道公司2亿日元罚金。西武铁道公司在2004年12月被出市（Ootani,2007,p.268）。在这个事件中，尽管西武铁道公司的审计师和董事们感觉到这样做是欠妥当的，但是母公司的负责人却有足够的非法行动的权利。有些人对关于非法记录问题持有以下两种观点：（1）内部控制制度是无效的；（2）与国外的企业丑闻相比，在金融检查过程中花费了太少的时间去评估企业的内部控制（日本企业董事协会，2008，p90）。日本的《企业法》和《金融商品交易法》因为西武铁道丑闻事件而规定了内部控制制度的一些内容，因此我们任务这一事件对日本内部控制制度的立法形成产生了极大的影响。除了西武铁道丑闻事件外，2005年出版的《公司法》也是内部控制制度的立法背景。新出版的《公司法》扩大了公司的自由权利，但这也意味着公司滥用权利的机会增加。为了抑制权利的滥用，公司必须加强内部控制，同时这也是在日本需要加强内部控制的原因之一。
|
|
|
|
|
