中文文獻：

一、中文書籍
1. 吳巡龍，刑事訴訟與證據法全集，新學林出版公司（2008）。
2. 林志潔，財經正義的刑法觀點，元照出版公司（2014）。
3. 洪啟仁，認識鑑識會計—舞弊之預防、偵測、調查與回應，安侯企業管理股份有限公司（2011）。
4. 陸潤康，美國聯邦憲法論，3版，法治建設基金會（2001）。

二、期刊論文
1. 王正嘉，〈犯罪被害人影響刑事量刑因素初探〉，《國立中正大學法學集刊》，第36期，頁57-94，2012年10月。
2. 王兆鵬，〈律師與當事人之秘匿特權〉，《刑事法雜誌》，50卷6期，頁1-18，2006年12月。
3. 王兆鵬，〈貫徹平等與實質之辯護制度〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第137期，頁104-119，2006年9月。
4. 王惠光，〈律師的保密義務〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第180期，頁237-248，2010年5月。
5. 李曜崇，〈從比較法觀點探討我國律師擔當守門員角色之法律布局〉，《法學新論》，第5期，頁119-154，2008年5月。
6. 吳耀宗，〈鑑定人在刑事訴訟程序的角色與權利義務〉，《中央警察大學法學論叢》，第12期，頁155-180，2007年4月。
7. 邱妍馨，〈找出真相的能力—鑑識會計！〉，《會計研究月刊》，第293期，頁68-77，2010年4月。
8. 邱筱雯、林志潔，〈鑑定和專家證人制度之比較與對鑑識會計制度建構之建議〉，《會計師季刊》，第262期， 頁17-33，2015年3月。
9. 邱筱雯、林志潔、林孝倫，〈鑑識會計於我國財經犯罪案件訴訟支援之實證研究〉，《檢察新論》，第25期，頁258-281，2019年2月。
10. 林志潔，〈我國財務資訊不實刑事責任之法律適用疑義與重大性要件〉，《證券市場發展季刊》，第111期，頁131-164，2016年9月。
11. 林彥良，〈量刑刑事政策及量刑歷程之研究──以竊盜罪為例〉，《刑事法雜誌》，第54卷第1期，頁1-56，2010年2月。
12. 陳志龍，〈財經犯罪之監督與鑑定證據(下) 〉，《全國律師》，第9卷第5期，頁77-114，2005年5月。
13. 葉雲卿，〈律師作為證人時拒絕證言權範圍之研究──以專利侵權意見書為討論中心〉，《世新法學》，第7卷第1期，頁91-136，2013年12月。
14. 蘇素娥，〈刑事訴訟制度與司法為民──以無資力被告辯護依賴權的保障為中心〉，《刑事法雜誌》，第56卷第6期，頁51-70，2012年12月。

三、中文學位論文
1. 邱筱雯，《財報不實之實證研究──論鑑識會計在財經犯罪案件之訴訟支援》，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2014年7月。
2. 蘇凱平，《政府秘匿特權與刑事審判—以美國法為借鏡》，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2009年6月。

四、 其他中文參考文獻
1. 司法院107年度「鑑定人揭露事項委託研究案」研究計畫期末報告。
2. 司法院商業事件審理法草案初稿：http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/GNNWS/download.asp?sdMsgId=73821（最後點閱時間：2019年8月14日）。
3. 司法院幫助詐欺罪量刑資訊系統：http://sen.judicial.gov.tw/pub_fraud_sbin/fraud_chkid_Project3.cgi。
4. 司法統計，地方法院重大刑事案件裁判結果一按罪名別分：https://www.judicial.gov.tw/juds/year105/09/082.pdf（最後點閱時間：2019年8月14日）。
5. 法務部106年統計年報，法務統計資訊網：https://www.rjsd.moj.gov.tw/RJSDWeb/book/Book_File.ashx?book_id=299_1（最後點閱時間：2019年8月16日）。
6. 法律扶助基金會104年度預算報告書，法律扶助基金會網站：http://www.laf.org.tw/ upload/files/201509141211393139.pdf（最後點閱時間：2017年11月21日）。
7. 總統府司法改革國是會議成果報告，總統府司法改革國是會議網站：https://justice.president.gov.tw/newinfo/117（最後點閱時間：2017年11月21日）。

英文文獻：

一、英文書籍
1. Campbell, Arthur W., Law of Sentencing (3d ed. & Supp.2006).
2. Cox, James D., Robert W. Hillman & Donald C. Langevoort, Securities Regulation: Cases and Materials (7th ed. 2017).
3. Crain, Michael A., William S. Hopwood, Carl Pacini, George R. Yong, Essentials of Forensic Accounting (2015).
4. Dressler, Joshua & Alan C. Michaels, Understanding Criminal Procedure Volume 2: Adjudication (4th ed. 2015).
5. Dressler, Joshua, Understanding Criminal Law (4th ed. 2006).
6. Frankel, Marvin E., Criminal Sentences: Law Without Order (1973).
7. Giannelli, Paul C., Understanding Evidence (4th ed. 2013).
8. Hricik, David, Patent Ethics Litigation (2010).
9. Jack C. Robertson, Auditing (7th ed. 1993).
10. The Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts (Stephen E. Fienberg eds., 1989).
11. Weinstein, Jack B.& Margaret. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence United States Rule (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed., 2d ed. 1997).
12. Zabihollah Rezaee, Richard Riley, Financial Statement Fraud—Prevention And Detection (2d ed. 2009).

二、英文期刊
1. Bailey, Carlton, Ake v. Oklahoma and an Indigent Defendant’s ‘Right’ to an Expert Witness: A Promise Denied or Imagined?, 10 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 401 (2002).
2. Barsky, Noah P.et al., Protecting a Client's Confidences: Recent Developments in Privileged Communication Between Attorneys and Accountants, 28 J.L. & Com. 211, 215 (2010).
3. Bennett, Mark W, Justin D. Levinson & Koichi Hioki, Judging Federal White-Collar Fraud Sentencing: An Empirical Study Reveling the Need for Further Reform, 102 Iowa L. Rev. 939, 946 (2017).
4. Bennett, Mark W., Confronting Cognitive “Anchoring Effect” and “Blind Spot” Biases in Federal Sentencing: A Modest Solution for Reforming a Fundamental Flaw, 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 489, 517 (2014).
5. Bennett, Steven C., Protecting Privileges When Working with Accountants, Prac. Litigator, Nov. 2009, at 37.
6. Breger, Melissa L., Introducing the Construct of the Jury into Family Violence Proceedings and Family Court Jurisprudence, 13 Mich. J. Gender & L. 1 (2006).
7. Bynum, Harold N., Note, Evidence-Privileged Communications-Accountant and Client, 46 N.C. L. Rev. 419, 419 n.1 (1968).
8. Causey, Denzil & Frances McNair, An Analysis of State Accountant-Client Privilege Statutes and Public Policy Implications for the Accountant-Client Relationship, 27 Am. Bus. L. J. 535, 549 (1990).
9. Cockburn, Tina & Bill Madden, Adapting to Concurrent Expert Evidence in Medical Litigation, 22 J.L. & Med. 610, 610 (2015).
10. Cook, Philip C., Practical Suggestions To Enhance The Work Product Protection of Client Tax Accrual and FIN 48 Workpapers, 23 NO. 2 Prac. Tax L. 33, 37 (2009).
11. Davies, Recent Australian Developments: A Response to Peter Heerey, 23 Civ. Juv. Q. 396, 398 (2004).
12. Dolinko, David, Three Mistakes of Retributivism, 39 UCLA L. Rev. 1623 (1992).
13. Edmond, Gary, Merton and the Hot Tub: Scientific Conventions and Expert Evidence in Australian Civil Procedure, 72 L. & Contemp. Probs. 159, 164 (2009).
14. Eoff, Gretchen, Losing the War on Attorney-Client Privilege: Viewing the Selective Waiver Quagmire Through the Tenth Circuit's In re Qwest Communications International, 75 Def. Couns. J. 79, 81 (2008).
15. Feola, Steven & Richard A. Alcorn, Expert Witness Advocacy: Changing its Culture, 45 Ariz. Att'y. 24, 28 (2009).
16. Fox, Lawrence J., Accountants, the Hawks of the Professional World: They Foul Our Nest and Theirs Too. Plus Other Ruminations on the Issue of MDPs., 84 Minn. L. Rev. 1097, 1104-05 (2000).
17. Friedenthal, Discovery and Use of an Adverse Party’s Expert Information, 14 Stan. L. Rev. 455 (1962).
18. Frommell, David M., Construction and the Accountant-Client Privilege, Construction Briefings No. 2012-8 (2012).
19. Giannelli, Paul C., Ake v. Oklahoma: The Right to Expert Assistance in a Post-Daubert Post-DNA World, 89 Cornell L. Rev. 1307 (2004).
20. Goebes, Lee Richards, The Equality Principle Revisited: The Relationship of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals to Ake v. Oklahoma, 15 Cap. Def. J. 1 (2002).
21. Greene, Edie & Natalie Gordon, Can the “hot tub” enhance jurors’ understanding and use of expert testimony?, 16 Wyo. L. Rev. 359, 378 (2016).
22. Gruetzmacher, Kim J., Comment, Privileged Communications with Accountants: The Demise of United States v. Kovel, 86 Marq. L. Rev. 977, 988 (2003).
23. Harris, David A., The Constitution and Truth Seeking: A New Theory on Expert Services for Indigent Defendants, 83 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 469 (1992).
24. Heerey, Hon. Justice Peter, Recent Australian Developments, 23 Civ. Juv. Q. 386, 390-391 (2004).
25. Higgins, Andrew Monaghan, Virginia’s Interpretation of Ake v. Oklahoma: A Hollow Right, 23 Wash. & Lee J. Civil Rts. & Soc. Just. 491 (2017).
26. Kao et al., Into The Hot Tub ... A Practical Guide to Alternative Expert Witness Procedures in International Arbitration, 44 Int'l L. 1035, 1043 (2010).
27. Loudenslager, Michael W., Cover Me: The Effects of Attorney-Accountant Multidisciplinary Practice on the Protections of the Attorney-Client Privilege, 53 Baylor L. Rev. 33, 73 (2001).
28. Medine, David,, The Constitutional Right to Expert Assistance for Indigents in Civil Cases, 41 Hastings L.J. 281 (1990).
29. Murphy, Justin P., Expert Witnesses at Trial: Where are the Ethics?, 14 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 217 (2000).
30. Noah P. Barsky, Anthony H. Catanach, Jr., Ilya A. Lipina & Shelley C. Rhoades-Catanach, Protecting a Client's Confidences: Recent Developments in Privileged Communication Between Attorneys and Accountants, 28 J.L. & Com. 211 (2010).
31. Olejar, Robert J., Forensic accountants in business litigation, 250 N.J. L. 67, 69 (2008).
32. Reifert, Elizabeth, Getting in to the Hot Tub: How The United States Could Benefit From Australia’s Concept Of “Hot Tubbing” Expert Witnesses, 89 U.Det. Mercy L. Rev. 103, 107 (2011).
33. Smith, MacGregor, Using Impartial Experts in Valuations: A Forum-Specific Approach, 35 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1249 (1994).
34. Wiseman, Hannah Jacobs, Pro Bono Publico: The Growing Need for Expert Aid, 60 S.C. L. Rev. 493 (2008).
35. Wood, Lisa C., Experts in the Tub, 21 Antitrust. 95, 96-97 (2007).
36. Wood, Lisa C., Experts Only: Out of the Hot Tub and into the Joint Conference, Anti-trust, Fall. 2007 at 89, 89.

三、其他英文文獻
1. A.B.A. Standing Comm. on Legal Aid & Indigent Defendants, The Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/ls_sclaid_def_tenprinciplesbooklet.authcheckdam.pdf (2002).
2. Administrative Appeals Tribunal, An Evaluation of the Use of Concurrent Evidence in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal 6 (2005) (Austl.), http://www.aat.gov.au/SpeechesPapersAndResearch/ResearchPapers.htm.
3. Connors, Edward et al., Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence after Trial xv, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/dnaevid.pdf (1996).
4. David M. Frommell (2012), Construction and the Accountant-Client Privilege, Construction Briefings No. 2012-8.
5. Expert Witnesses Committee, A.B.A., https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/expert-witnesses/about.html (last visited Nov. 21, 2017).
6. Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Governmental Contracts for Criminal Defense Services (1984), Nat’l Legal Aid & Defender Ass’n, http://www.nlada.org/defender-standards/guidelines-governmental-contracts (last visited Nov. 21, 2017).
7. Hon. Garry Downes, Concurrent Expert Evidence in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal: The New South Wales Experience (Feb 27, 2004), https://perma.cc/ZN47-5FDB
8. Mark A. Segal, Accountants and the Attorney-Client Privilege: In the Future, Privilege May Apply to a New and Broader Range of Situations,
9. http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/1997/Apr/segal.htm.
10. New S. Wales L. Reform Commission, Rep. 109: Expert Witnesses 97 (2005), https://perma.cc/MDS6-L7AC.
11. Karen J. Mathis, President of American Bar Association, Statement Before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, A.B.A., Sept. 12, 2006, http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/files/attyclientprivissueabatestimonytosenjudc.).
12. Steve Rares, Using the “Hot tub”: How Concurrent Expert Evidence Aids Understanding Issues, FED. CT. AUSTRALIA n. 8 (Oct. 12, 2013), https://perma.cc/SC7L-TKXV.
13. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, available at: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines.
14. U.S. SENTENCING COMM'N, QUICK FACTS: THEFT, PROPERTY DESTRUCTION, AND FRAUD OFFENSES, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Theft_Property_Destruction_Fraud_FY15.pdf (2015).
15. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Quick Facts: Securities and Investment Fraud Offenses 1 (2018), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Securities_Fraud_FY16.pdf.(2018).
16. Wayne Condon et al., Concurrent Expert Evidence in Patent Cases, PRAC. L., https://perma.cc/HJT6-WYS (last visited Apr. 10, 2016).