SUBJECTIVITY IN JUDICIAL SENTENCES AND ITS EFFECTS ON FORENSIC ACCOUNTING IN THE LIQUIDATION OF JUDGMENTS
Forensic accounting; judicial subjectivity; sentence wording; judgment liquidation; expert report challenges; legal certainty.
Forensic accounting plays a fundamental role in the liquidation of judicial sentences, assisting in the accurate quantification of amounts and the enforcement of rights recognized in court. However, the subjectivity present in judicial decisions can create uncertainties in defining forensic criteria, affecting the conduct of expert analyses and the predictability of technical reports. This study investigates how the wording of judicial decisions influences forensic accounting, particularly in terms of clarity, completeness, and objectivity. The research examines the correlation between sentence subjectivity and the occurrence of expert report challenges, process duration, and procedural costs, with a special focus on the liquidation phase. The methodology combines qualitative and quantitative approaches, including the analysis of judicial decisions, forensic reports, and procedural statistics. The theoretical framework is based on the Theory of Legal and Accounting Communication, the Theory of Legal Argumentation, and the Conceptual Framework of Accounting. The expected results indicate the need for greater precision in the drafting of judicial decisions, aiming to reduce interpretative divergences and enhance legal certainty in the liquidation phase. This research contributes to improving the interaction between judges and forensic accountants, promoting greater procedural efficiency and methodological alignment in judicial expertise.