AI-powered programming language generation (PLG) models have gained increasing attention due to their ability to generate source code of programs in a few seconds with a plain program description. Despite their remarkable performance, many concerns are raised over the potential risks of their development and deployment, such as legal issues of copyright infringement induced by training usage of licensed code, and malicious consequences due to the unregulated use of these models. In this paper, we present the first-of-its-kind study to systematically investigate the accountability of PLG models from the perspectives of both model development and deployment. In particular, we develop a holistic framework not only to audit the training data usage of PLG models, but also to identify neural code generated by PLG models as well as determine its attribution to a source model. To this end, we propose using membership inference to audit whether a code snippet used is in the PLG model's training data. In addition, we propose a learning-based method to distinguish between human-written code and neural code. In neural code attribution, through both empirical and theoretical analysis, we show that it is impossible to reliably attribute the generation of one code snippet to one model. We then propose two feasible alternative methods: one is to attribute one neural code snippet to one of the candidate PLG models, and the other is to verify whether a set of neural code snippets can be attributed to a given PLG model. The proposed framework thoroughly examines the accountability of PLG models which are verified by extensive experiments. The implementations of our proposed framework are also encapsulated into a new artifact, named CodeForensic, to foster further research.