PWC is supposed to be the definition of non-sketchy accountants, and like 50% their fee goes to maintain that appearance. Not saying they didn't sabotage that prestige here, but it's not like she deliberately selected for sketchy accountants.
According to the Bloomberg article somebody else posted, she hid some of the details of what she was doing from the auditors, and this was revealed at trial using the auditors' notes.
Right, but then in that case her problem is (as I was trying to say above) not that she was "hiring sketchy accountants" but that she was "deceiving non-sketchy accountants".
It just seems like a lot of the discussion is trying to leave this at the feet of the auditors. Can't really blame them for your wrongdoing if you endeavored to deceive them, in my opinion.
To reiterate, I don't disagree at all, I was only objecting to the characterization of the core problem as "finding sketchy accountants". Giving accountants sketchy information? Sure. The accountants themselves being stenographers for hire? No.
So the question is, after the incredible track record for fraud by Wall Street businesses like them, why do major companies and investors still trust them?
