根据相关规定，审计人员与客户之间的关系不得过于亲近。否则，这将涉嫌违反审计独立原则。该原则旨在确保审计公司在审计过程中保持客观性和公平性。但是近日，安永合伙人和客户公司的财务总监保持着不恰当的亲密关系。美国证交会因此对其进行详细调查，并开出巨额罚单。那么，在审计工作中，大家应该保持怎样的安全距离呢?下面是yjbys小编为大家带来的关于审计师该如何保持与客户间的安全距离的知识，欢迎阅读。

　　Professionalrelationships: how close is too close

　　职业社交：怎样的距离算是太近?

　　RolleenMcDonnell，29 September 2016

　　翻译：Yue, MengYu, Kat

　　EY recently made headlines when they came under scrutiny from the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) for allegedly breaching auditor independence rules, which require a degree of separation between auditors and the companies they audit. Gregory Bednar, a partner at EY, had, according to the SEC, sent hundreds of personal messages to the CFO of its client and they had travelled together with family members for no valid business purpose. Significant fines resulted.

　　These headlines raise an interesting question as to some of the legal, regulatory and employment law issues that can arise when professional relationships with clients or colleagues become personal.

　　The client relationship

　　In the UK, being seen to develop to close a relationship with clients can pose legal risks to the company. For example, auditors in the UK are also under a legal obligation to be independent from the audited entity. There will also potentially be exposure for firms under the Bribery Act if their employees either accepting or offering corporate hospitality inappropriately.

　　Trips to sporting events or celebratory dinners for business reasons should not pose a problem. However, lavishing extravagant trips or gifts on clients as the result of a personal relationship could create an exposure under the Bribery Act as well as being an act of misconduct on the part of the employee concerned.

　　Other professional obligations can come into play if advisers develop personal relationships with their clients. For example, whilst there is no professional rule preventing lawyers having relationships with their clients, solicitors owe their clients a fiduciary duty and certain relationships could pose a breach of that duty, such as entering into a personal relationship with a vulnerable client who is going through a divorce.

　　Relationships at work

　　Many employers are also concerned about internal relationships between their employees. It is not unheard of for partnerships to operate a "no sibling policy" or "no spouses/partners policy" at recruitment stage to avoid the risk of its partnership placing personal allegiances over the interests of the business. Job applicants are protected against discrimination on the grounds of protected characteristics.

　　This will not assist a job applicant who is prevented from making an application due to a sibling in the business but the position is not quite so clear with a no spouses/partners policy. Marriage is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, however, there is conflicting case law as to whether someone will be protected as a result of a marriage or close relationship with a particular person (the wider view), or whether protection will only apply if a person would be treated less favourably because they are married to the person in question, rather than in a long-term co-habiting relationship for example (the narrower view). If the narrower view applies then, providing the policy is appropriately worded, it will be lawful.

　　There is a distinction to be drawn between not hiring someone because of a personal relationship and dismissing someone because of it (assuming that it had not been improperly concealed). Any snap decision to dismiss an employee on the grounds of personal relationships will be unfair, if that employee has two years' service.

　　However, employees can be dismissed for "some other substantial reason" under the Employment Rights Act, which can include a breakdown of personal relationships and if these have reached the stage that hostilities have arisen, it may be reasonable to fairly dismiss one of the employees concerned. In this case there is an expectation that employers avoid the dismissal by mediating or reallocating one individual to another team so the larger a firm is, the less likely it is that a dismissal on these grounds would be considered fair.

　　On a practical level, it may also create practical difficulties if internal relationships are, or are perceived to be causing favouritism. For example, most employers would want to avoid a situation where an individual was deciding their partner’s bonus and sensible measures should be taken to avoid that risk.

　　Work socials

　　Whilst work social events are often important for the morale of a team, they also pose business risks. Employers can still be vicariously liable for their employees’ actions at out of hours work social events, including any harassing behaviour. No employer can eliminate this risk but they can minimise it by having clear policies in place and training and dealing with all complaints seriously.

　　Each workplace and each sector will pose its own challenges for employers, however, it is key for employers to be aware of the potential issues that could result from the stance they take on any form of personal relationship in the workplace and to act promptly and fairly.

　　安永会计师事务所(EY)受到美国证券交易委员会(US Securities Exchange Commission ，简称美国证交会或者SEC)的全面审查后，因其违反了审计独立准则上了头条。审计独立规则要求审计师与被审计的公司之间在一定程度上相互独立。根据美国证交会的报告，安永的合伙人格雷戈里•贝特(Gregory Bednar)向其客户公司的财务总监发送了数百条私人信息。他们在家庭成员陪伴下共同出游，且此次是非商务的出行。SEC对其处以高额罚款。

　　各大媒体标题都提出了一个有趣的问题：当与客户的工作合作关系转为私人关系后，一些涉及法律法规和劳动条例的问题就会出现。

　　客户关系

　　在英国，与客户发展亲密关系可能会被视为对公司造成潜在法律风险。例如，英国的审计师有独立于被审计单位的法律义务。如果他们的员工接受或提供不恰当的招待，事务所也有可能涉嫌违反《贿赂法》。

　　出于商业原因参加体育赛事或庆祝晚宴应该不是问题。然而，出于私人关系而给客户赠送奢侈旅行优惠或礼品，可能会违反《贿赂法》。企业如果错误地指挥员工做同样的事，也会涉嫌违法。

　　如果咨询顾问与客户发展私人关系，其他的专业义务也需要履行。例如，虽然没有专业的准则防止律师与客户发展关系，律师对他们的客户仍有受托责任，而某些关系可能违反这一义务(比如与一个正在经历离婚的脆弱的客户发展私人关系)。

　　工作关系

　　很多雇主也关注他们的员工之间的内部关系。在招聘阶段实行“无同胞政策”或说“无配偶政策”以防止其合伙人把个人关系置于企业利益之上。这并非没有先例。求职者会受到保护，被保证不受这一“保护政策”的歧视。

　　对于那些因为有无配偶政策而受到限制的求职者来说，这种保护不能起到作用，因为这些条例不会在职位要求中被明晰地列出。 婚姻受到《平等法》的保护。然而，判例法中对于一些问题有相互矛盾的地方：广泛来说，问题在于一个人是否会因其与某人的婚姻或亲密关系而理应得到保护;狭义上来说，问题在于法律是否应该只在一种情况下起到保护作用，即如果只有一个人因其婚姻而不是长期同居关系而受到不平等的对待。如果狭义的观点适用，而且政策被指定表述，那就是合法的。

　　因私人关系而不受聘用和因此被解雇之间是有差别的(假设，这一事实没有被不当隐匿)。如果一个雇员提供了两年的工作服务，任何以私人关系为借口突然解雇他/她的决定都是不公平的。

　　然而，雇员可以根据《就业权利法》中规定的“一些其他实质性理由”被解雇。这些理由就可以包括私人关系破裂。如果这些行为引起了相互敌视，解雇有关雇员可能是公平合理的。在这种情况下，我们认为雇主应避免通过中介解雇雇员，或者将其重新分配给另一团队。所以对于越大的公司来说，认为以这些理由解雇员工合理公平的可能性就越小。

　　在实务层面上，如果内部关系是或者被认为是会造成偏袒，这也可能造成实际困难。例如，对于大多数雇主想要避免某个人决定他们伴侣奖金的情况，应该采取明智有效的措施避免这种风险。

　　工作社交

　　虽然工作中的社交活动对鼓舞员工士气往往很重要，但它们也构成潜在商业风险。雇主仍然可以为其雇员在非工作时间的社交活动中的行为(包括任何骚扰行为)承担法律责任。没有雇主可以消除这种风险，但他们可以通过明确的政策、训练和对抱怨的严肃处理使风险最小化。

　　雇主在每个工作场所或者每个部门都将受到挑战。然而，清楚地意识到他们在工作场所发展任何形式的个人关系所导致的潜在问题，并能迅速公平的处理对雇主来说是很关键的。