RESUMEN Actualmente en el ejercicio de la revisoría fiscal, el contador se enfrenta a diferentes situaciones que afectan o modifican su opinión en un dictamen ya divulgado; esto genera incertidumbre a los grupos de interés, exponiéndose a un problema jurídico de corte civil o penal. Es así como el presente artículo analiza las implicaciones civiles y penales en las que incurre el revisor fiscal por la modificación de la opinión en su dictamen. Desde la perspectiva metodológica, la investigación es analítica. Se parte de una indagación de la normativa para el ejercicio de la revisoría fiscal en Colombia, luego se analizan las implicaciones civiles y penales al modificar una opinión en su dictamen de acuerdo con el Código Penal, el Código Civil, la Rey 43 de 1990, el Código de Comercio y el sustento legal. Ros resultados muestran que, para el revisor fiscal, cuando se le compruebe dolo producto de un cambio de opinión, se establece un valor económico que será determinado por un juzgado, el cual va desde 50 hasta 50.000 SMRV, dependiendo del daño ocasionado y de acuerdo con la conducta punible dolosa, culposa o preterintencional, con una pena entre uno (1) y treinta (30) años de prisión según el daño ocasionado hacia los stakeholders afectados.

ABSTRACT Currently in the exercise of the fiscal revision, the accountant faces different situations that affect or modify his opinion in an already disclosed report, this generates uncertainty to the interest groups, exposing himself to a legal problem of civil or criminal court. Thus, this article analyzes the civil and criminal implications incurred by the fiscal auditor for the modification of the opinion in his report. From the methodological perspective, the research is analytical. It begins with an investigation of the regulations for the exercise of the statutory review in Colombia, and then analyzes the civil and criminal implications of modifying an opinion in its ruling in accordance with the criminal code, civil code, law 43 of 1990, commercial code, and legal support. The results show that when the fiscal auditor is found to have committed fraud as a result of a change of opinion, an economic value is established that will be determined by a court ranging from 50 to 50,000 SMRV, depending on the damage caused and according to whether the conduct is punishable as intentional, negligent or premeditated, with a penalty of between one (1) and thirty (30) years in prison, depending on the damage caused to the affected stakeholders.

Two Supreme Court of Appeal judicial decisions have changed the manner in which courts will have to view an auditor's liability to third parties. The first decision was written by Brand JA in Cape Empowerment Trust Limited v Fisher Hoffman Sithole, where he held that a misstatement in the auditor's report by the auditor was grossly negligent but not wrongful. The auditor was afforded immunity from liability for a negligent misrepresentation which consisted of a misstatement in the audit report which rendered the audit report "unusable" thereby defeating the purpose for the auditor's existence. This paper demonstrates that it is clearly wrongful for an auditor to make negligent misstatements in his or her audit report, however it is reasonably possible that the test for legal causation may render the auditor immune from liability. The second decision was written by Navsa JA in Axiam Holdings Ltd v Deloitte & Touche where he held that an auditor may have a duty to warn a third party about the incorrectness of an audit report even if the auditor is unaware of its incorrectness, and ignorant to whom the warning must be made, if the third party can show that the auditor ought reasonably to have known of the incorrectness. This paper demonstrates that while an auditor has a duty to speak, such a duty cannot exist without a third party to speak to.