【正文】 圍，不敢利用權(quán)力強(qiáng)行指使會計(jì)人員作假；另一方面，如果單位負(fù)責(zé)人一意孤行，則有明確的法律依據(jù)對該行為進(jìn)行法律懲處。而會計(jì)人員也作為會計(jì)工作的直接經(jīng)辦人，要認(rèn)真做好本職工作，其行為不僅受單位內(nèi)部規(guī)章制度的約束，同樣也受《會計(jì)法》的約束；如果知法不行、知錯不糾，也要依法承擔(dān)責(zé)任。筆者認(rèn)為學(xué)校圖書館具備了完備的數(shù)據(jù)庫，我們可以找到很多有關(guān)于研究的課題的權(quán)威信息，可以為。作為會計(jì)專業(yè)的學(xué)生，通過四年的理論專業(yè)知識學(xué)習(xí)和一段時間的實(shí)踐，已經(jīng)具備了一定的專業(yè)分析能力，并做了相當(dāng)詳細(xì)的文獻(xiàn)檢索，收集了大量的相關(guān)資料，也對此進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的解讀和分析。單位負(fù)責(zé)人應(yīng)當(dāng)切實(shí)履行法律賦予的職責(zé)，但這并不是要求單位負(fù)責(zé)人代替會計(jì)人員記帳、算帳、報帳。修訂后的《會計(jì)法》，突出了規(guī)范會計(jì)行為、保證會計(jì)信息質(zhì)量的立法宗旨，特別強(qiáng)調(diào)了單位負(fù)責(zé)人的會計(jì)法律責(zé)任。由此導(dǎo)致國有資產(chǎn)流失，股民利益受損，投資信心喪失，直接影響到宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)的健康運(yùn)行。2. 畢業(yè)論文內(nèi)容完整、格式規(guī)范、質(zhì)量符合要求，并進(jìn)行答辯。主要內(nèi)容與基本要求主要內(nèi)容：1. 相關(guān)概念及單位負(fù)責(zé)人法律責(zé)任的國際比較。論文名稱論單位負(fù)責(zé)人的會計(jì)法律責(zé)任主要任務(wù)與目標(biāo)1. 進(jìn)行文獻(xiàn)檢查，撰寫有關(guān)本課題研究的文獻(xiàn)綜述一篇（2000字以上），以了解該課題的國內(nèi)外研究現(xiàn)狀。例如，1978年，歐盟委員會在起草統(tǒng)一歐盟國家公司法的第5號公司法指令時，在草案中規(guī)定，注冊會計(jì)師在公司法定審計(jì)下所承擔(dān)的民事責(zé)任為無過錯責(zé)任。但是，一個律師不能擔(dān)保打贏所有的官司，一個外科醫(yī)生也不能保證手到病除。從法律領(lǐng)域來看，對于包括會計(jì)職業(yè)在內(nèi)的專業(yè)人士的法律責(zé)任基本上都采取了過錯責(zé)任原則。作者：米爾頓國籍：美國出處：商業(yè)倫理期刊, 2006(10): 740原文2Commercial Bribery in The Bear Legal Responsibility AccountingImputation is to let person liable. The principle of accountability is the basis and imputation criteria, which determine the responsibility of reason. Theoretically, the legal responsibility imputation principle generally has two kinds: one is subjective imputation principle, also known as the principle of fault liability or negligence liability principle, namely in the subjective will determine the responsibility for the state to, Two imputation principle is objective, also called nofault liability principle or strict liability principle, namely to people outside the will of a objective facts as determined according to the responsibility. The principle of accountability for mercial bribery in the legal responsibility of accounting is very important. From the legal perspective, including accounting field for the professional career, the legal responsibility basically fault liability principle was adopted. For example, the German mercial code article 323 in paragraph 1 of article regulation: audit accountants, the assistant and the legal representative of the pany for accounting for deliberately or negligent violation behavior of its responsibilities shall bear legal responsibility. In the countries of AngloAmerican law system, the accounting profession caused by improper behavior of the legal responsibility always adapt to fault liability principle, not only such, in every professional career activity area, the judge has consistently refused to provide professional services to assume a guaranty liability or responsibility of absolute viewpoint. As early as in 1838, British ting in Lanphiev. Phipos judge dell said: in each to have long professional identity activities, have the obligation to professional activities in its reasonable use level of attention and professional skills. However, a lawyer can guarantee all the case, a win the surgeon will not guarantee instant solutions. One hundred years later, the Greave in 1975, digallic Lord reiterated that the basic rules of the law, he said: the relevant professional liability law and no implied warranties, a professional obtain optimal result, it is the most professional use reasonable requirement of attention and skills. If the fault liability principle is based on public behaviour and moral standards, to the state of subjective will judge, to determine the behavior is the blame or limited, and can be the original decision according to their responsibility for the light, and the principle of no fault liability fixation is objective way to expand the results, it is for the purpose of relief, in order to improve the success rate for the right of indemnity, is to unfortunate, reasonable distribution of damage its main function is Shared, pensation of the victim. In the 20th century, the nofault liability principle in the accounting profession also has a place. For example, 1978, the European mission in the draft eu unification of the pany law, in the draft directive, certified public accountants in the legal audit under the civil liability undertaken for the nofault liability. Meanwhile, in the United States, some tort reformers scholars expressed CPA civil liability for claims of no fault principle. Certified public accountants untruthful audit report by analogy for the defective product, apply the product liability under strict liability or nofault liability.Author: LitteltonNationality: USAOriginate from: Atlantic Economic Journal, 2004(10): 235譯文2商業(yè)賄賂中會計(jì)法律責(zé)任的承擔(dān)與防范歸責(zé)就是讓行為人承擔(dān)責(zé)任。三是要加強(qiáng)單位負(fù)責(zé)人的責(zé)任管理。按照內(nèi)部控制的規(guī)范要求。完善單位內(nèi)控。要充分發(fā)揮注冊會計(jì)師和會計(jì)師事務(wù)所在會計(jì)法律責(zé)任管理中的社會監(jiān)督力量。執(zhí)法必嚴(yán)，違法必究。要督促單位建立健全內(nèi)控制度，執(zhí)行會計(jì)準(zhǔn)則體系，依法提供真實(shí)完整的會計(jì)信息；要督促單位負(fù)責(zé)人依法履行對本單位會計(jì)工作和會計(jì)信息真實(shí)性、完整性負(fù)有的職責(zé)；要督促注冊會計(jì)師和會計(jì)師事務(wù)所客觀、公正地開展社會審計(jì)業(yè)務(wù)；要督促會計(jì)人員依法從事會計(jì)工作。一是要完善監(jiān)督機(jī)制，建立會計(jì)監(jiān)督報告制度，明確監(jiān)督的權(quán)限、范圍、方法和程序，加強(qiáng)監(jiān)督檢查人員的組成、檢查證件的設(shè)計(jì)、監(jiān)督檢查結(jié)論的出具、處理意見的落實(shí)，以及行政處罰、聽證、復(fù)議、應(yīng)訴等環(huán)節(jié)的管理。防范單位負(fù)責(zé)人會計(jì)違法意義重大。單位負(fù)責(zé)人應(yīng)保證會計(jì)人員以《會計(jì)法》和國家統(tǒng)一的會計(jì)制度為準(zhǔn)繩，認(rèn)真做好會計(jì)工作，不得指使、授意會計(jì)人員弄虛作假。沒有有效的監(jiān)督和控制，會計(jì)核算的質(zhì)量就難以保證；會計(jì)監(jiān)督如果脫離了會計(jì)核算過程，也難以取得好的效果。各單位在建帳和會計(jì)核算中都應(yīng)嚴(yán)格遵守，不斷規(guī)范會計(jì)行為，保證會計(jì)資料質(zhì)量。單位負(fù)責(zé)人應(yīng)保證單位從設(shè)立時起就依法設(shè)置會計(jì)帳冊，系統(tǒng)、有效地進(jìn)行會計(jì)核算。但法律規(guī)定單位負(fù)責(zé)人的具體責(zé)任形式，主要是發(fā)揮法律的威懾作用，促使單位負(fù)責(zé)人更好地貫徹落實(shí)《會計(jì)法》的各項(xiàng)規(guī)定，切實(shí)履行保證單位會計(jì)資料真實(shí)性和完整性的責(zé)任。（三）單位負(fù)責(zé)人的會計(jì)法律責(zé)任形式及其工作要求新《會計(jì)法》的規(guī)定，單位負(fù)責(zé)人承擔(dān)會計(jì)法律責(zé)任的形式主要有行政責(zé)任和刑事責(zé)任兩種。舊法中，責(zé)權(quán)利相互脫節(jié)，表面上看，會計(jì)人員有一定的職權(quán)，實(shí)際上會計(jì)人員無權(quán)、無利，虛假會計(jì)信息的責(zé)任主體是會計(jì)人員，而單位負(fù)責(zé)人對單位的會計(jì)工作和保證會計(jì)資料真實(shí)性、完整性的責(zé)任未予明確。會計(jì)人員客觀上的非獨(dú)立性無法使會計(jì)監(jiān)督有效實(shí)施。單位負(fù)責(zé)人主要包括兩類人員：一是單位的法定代表人，是指依法代表單位行使職權(quán)的負(fù)責(zé)人 ，如國有企業(yè)的廠長、公司制企業(yè)的董事長、國家機(jī)關(guān)單位的最高行政官員等；二是按照法律、行政法規(guī)規(guī)定代表單位行使職權(quán)的負(fù)責(zé)人 ，是指依法代表非法人盟位行使職權(quán)的負(fù)責(zé)人，如代表合伙企業(yè)執(zhí)行合伙企業(yè)事務(wù)的合伙人、個人獨(dú)資企業(yè)的投資人等。由此導(dǎo)致國有資產(chǎn)流失，股民利益受損，投資信心喪失，直接影響到宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)的健康運(yùn)行。針對這一嚴(yán)峻形勢，新《會計(jì)法》強(qiáng)化了會計(jì)活動的制約和監(jiān)督，特別規(guī)定了單位負(fù)責(zé)人的會計(jì)法律責(zé)任，加大了會計(jì)違法犯罪行為的處罰力度。參考文獻(xiàn)：[1] 《會計(jì)法》的實(shí)施淺議單位負(fù)責(zé)人的會計(jì)法律責(zé)任[J].《江蘇商業(yè)會計(jì)》,2006(4),第4244頁.[2] [J].《福建財會》,2003(7),第2021頁.[3] [J].《廣西會計(jì)》,2000(5),第35頁.[4] 肖強(qiáng),[J].《現(xiàn)代會計(jì)》,2000(6),第2425頁.[5] [J].社會科學(xué)論壇,2004,第7577頁.[6] [J].《經(jīng)濟(jì)與法》,2008(10),第49頁.[7] [J].廣西財政高等?？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報,2004(17),第6465頁.[8] [J].科技資訊,2009(22),第157頁.[9] [J].《安徽財會》,2001(10),第3738頁.[10] 孫忠強(qiáng),[J].《交通財會》,2001(6),第5253頁.[11] [J].貴州工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報,2007(9),第7375頁.[12] [J].山西財經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報,2000(6),第2627頁.[13] [J].會計(jì)與審計(jì),2004(10),第5657頁.[14] [M].北京：中國財政經(jīng)濟(jì)