Evidence Law Research On Judicial Accounting Appraisal Opinion

Due to the formation, principle and the inherent characteristics of judicial accounting, the forming and recording process of its contents directly reflects any economic activity involved, thus revealing any evidence that was previously not disclosed. In cases involving fraud such as corruption, tax evasion, stocks, embezzlement, or other financial crimes, processing economic dispute, and filing corporate bankruptcy, appraisals given by judicial accountants are needed to determine the amount of money involved. As a special kind of legal evidence, Judicial accounting appraisals should follow the law of evidence and the general requirements of the use of evidence. China currently does not have an independent evidence code, and the current rules do not explicitly included judicial accounting under its jurisdiction, making it unfavorable in improving the judicial system. Meanwhile, public security organs own all appraisal rights, including rights to start up new appraisals, while the litigant participants only have the right to supplement or appeal, resulting in equality between the two. Due to lack of professional knowledge and proper utilization, judges have difficulties reviewing the judicial accounting appraisal opinions. There are no legal obligations for the appraiser to appear in court, often making the appraisal ineligible in court. The lack of regulation on the qualification of hired experts and the lack of support of the legal status of the appraisals given make the process inefficient court. The lack of a unified industry technological standards leads to large contrasts in quality in judicial accounting appraisals. In addition, in litigation practices, the situations of multiple and repetitive appraisals as well as the increasing amount of complaints of judicial appraisals mean that improvements to the current system are in need. The author researches judicial accounting through evidence law, systems from other countries, and practice and has concluded with these proposals:Firstly, establish a model of " judicial officers starting system first, party starting system as support", allocate the rights of judicial appraisal starting system rationally, and fully protect the rights of proof of all parties. Secondly, make specific provision for the appearance of the appraiser in court, and legal obligation and consequences for refusal to testily, and exceptions and protection for individual cases, to fully protect the rights of all parties in cross-examination. Thirdly, perfect the specific provisions for expert auxiliary start-up conditions, the litigation status, selection and employment qualification, rights and obligations, open opinions and admissibility rules. Assist the parties of the court in obtaining appraisal opinions. Fourthly, perfect the judicial appraisal system; establish unified judicial accounting appraisal technical specification, including general procedure guidelines and specific technology rules. Fifthly, establish the systems of wrong authentication and professional insurance, ensure quality of appraisal, improve the efficiency of each lawsuit. Improving judicial accounting appraisal opinions will provide theory for the application in practice and theoretical reference for the system reform of the judicial, judicial appraisal and authentication.