????（順便說一句，我很同情那些將資金放在一家啟用中國小型會計師事務所的交易經紀商那里的投資者）。

????在美國上市公司會計監管委員會注冊公司列表中發現的另一樁有趣的事是畢馬威華振（KPMG Huazhen）報告稱，它沒有發布過審計報告，但在至少一家發行人的審計中擔任過關鍵角色。畢馬威香港在美國上市公司會計監管委員會的注冊狀態顯示為發布發行人審計報告。看看畢馬威中國客戶的審計報告，這些說法是準確的。所有的審計報告都由畢馬威香港簽署。這種做法帶來兩個問題。第一，如果畢馬威香港是真正發布審計報告者，美國證券交易委員會為什么問責畢馬威華振？這個問題的答案可能是畢馬威華振做了所有的工作，掌握著美國證券交易委員會想要查看的工作文件。第二個問題是畢馬威香港如何能在不是自己承擔審計的審計報告上簽字？

????由中國內地事務所承擔審計工作、香港事務所簽署審計報告已是香港的通行做法。在香港上市的大多數紅籌股都是這樣做的。H股過去也這樣做，但現在H股發布的審計報告大多已改由內地關聯事務所簽字。由于標準稅務（Standard Water）IPO失敗后香港監管機構無法取得安永（Ernst & Young）的審計工作文件，香港會計師事務所將審計工作外包、只負責簽字的做法正在受到抨擊。安永的辯解是，審計工作是由中國內地的附屬事務所進行的，根據中國法律，它無法公布工作文件。這樁訴訟正在香港法院推進，與美國證券交易委員會起訴會計師事務所一案驚人的相似。

????譯者：早稻米

????(By the way, I pity the investor who has money with a broker-dealer who uses a small Chinese accounting firm).

????Another interesting finding in the PCAOB list of registered firms is that KPMG Huazhen reports that it issued no audit reports but played a substantial role in the audit of at least one issuer. KPMG Hong Kong is registered with the PCAOB as issuing reports on issuers. A check of the audit reports of KPMG clients in China showed this to be accurate. KPMG Hong Kong signs all the audit reports. That raises two questions. First, why was KPMG Huazhen charged by the SEC, if KPMG in Hong Kong actually issues the reports? The answer to that question may be that KPMG Huazhen does all the work and has the working papers that the SEC wants to see. That leads to the second question, how does KPMG in Hong Kong sign the audit report if it does not do the audit?

????The signing of audit reports by the Hong Kong firm when the mainland firm does the work is a common practice in Hong Kong. Most of the red chips listed in Hong Kong are done this way. H-shares used to be done the same way, although most now have reports signed by the mainland affiliate. The practice of Hong Kong accountants signing reports when they outsource all the audit work is under attack after Hong Kong regulators were unable to get audit working papers from Ernst & Young on failed IPO Standard Water. Ernst & Young’s defense was that the work was done by its mainland affiliate, which could not release the working papers under Chinese law. That case is working its way through the Hong Kong courts and is virtually identical to the SEC case against the firms.