Abstract: Accounting scandals and auditing frauds are perceived to be driven by aggressive companies and misrepresentation of audit reports. However, local legal systems and law enforcements may affect the services auditors provide to their ‘important’ clients. Under the civil law and common law jurisdictions, the standard setters, the government, and the regulatory bodies treat cases differently. As such, whether or not different forms of legal systems and extent of law enforcement plays an important role in auditor’s Audit Quality is a question this paper attempts to explore. The paper focuses on the investigation in Asia, where Hong Kong represents the common-law jurisdiction, while Taiwan and China represent the civil law jurisdiction. Only the ten reputable accounting firms are used in this study due to the differences in rankings and establishments of some of the small local audit firms. This will also contribute to the data collected between the years 2007-2013. By focusing on the use of multiple regression based on the dependent (Audit Quality) and independent variables (Client Importance, Law Enforcement, and Press Freedom), six different models are established. Results demonstrate that since different jurisdictions have different legal systems and market regulations, auditor’s treatment on ‘important’ clients will vary. However, with the moderators in place (law enforcement and press freedom), the relationship between client importance and audit quality may be smoothed out. With that in mind, this study contributes to local governments and standard setters’ consideration on legal reform and proper law enforcement in the market. Perhaps, with such modifications on the economic systems, collusion between companies and auditors can finally be put to a halt.
Abstract: Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation provides that a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful events occurred or may occur. For a number of years Article 5 (3) of the Brussels I Regulation has been at the centre of the debate regarding the intellectual property rights infringement over the Internet. Nothing has been done to adapt the provisions relating to non-internet cases of infringement of intellectual property rights to the context of the Internet. The author’s findings indicate that in the case of intellectual property rights infringement on the Internet, the plaintiff has the option to sue either: the court of the Member State of the event giving rise to the damage: where the publisher of the newspaper is established; the court of the Member State where the damage occurred: where defamatory article is distributed. However, it must be admitted that whilst infringement over the Internet has some similarity to multi-State defamation by means of newspapers, the position is not entirely analogous due to the cross-border nature of the Internet. A simple example which may appropriately illustrate its contentious nature is a defamatory statement published on a website accessible in different Member States, and available in different languages. Therefore, we need to answer the question: how these traditional jurisdictional rules apply in the case of intellectual property rights infringement over the Internet? Should these traditional jurisdictional rules be modified?