5 ms·
Makes sense. There’s no need to use this to read into the solvency of Binance. From Mazars’ perspective, the small amount of fees they receive is not worth the
by dereg 4y ago
Makes sense. There’s no need to use this to read into the solvency of Binance. From Mazars’ perspective, the small amount of fees they receive is not worth the destruction of the rest of their business.
Arthur Andersen used to be one of the big accounting firms (the “big four” used to be the “big five” accounting firms) and their association with Enron and Worldcom destroyed their business. There’s no need to force an error by performing these incredibly narrow-scope exercises when the whole world is looking.
- CPLX 4y ago> their association with Enron and Worldcom destroyed their business It wasn’t so much the “association” as it was the massive criminal conspiracy they were convicted of.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago> the massive criminal conspiracy they were convicted of Not disagreeing with the sentiment, but the conviction was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen_LLP_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen_LLP_v._Unite...
- yborg 4y agoAs noted in the Wiki article, it was overturned essentially on procedural grounds based on how the jury was instructed. The government could have retried the case with the higher burden of proving willful misconduct by Andersen but by that point the firm was already dead from reputational damage, so I suppose justice was served anyway.
- quags 4y ago“During the fall of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Enron's accounting firm, instructed its employees to destroy documents relating to Enron after Andersen officials learned they would soon be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.” On that alone I’m surprised how it was unanimous on over turn for the Supreme Court. Obviously the documents did not show them in a good light.
- cldellow 4y agoThe role of appellate courts is generally not to judge the facts of the case, but to judge whether the law has been applied correctly. If you got convicted because the prosecutor and the trial judge didn't know what the law was, that's not right. That's what the Supreme Court decision here was about, not about whether or not Arthur Andersen had committed a crime. In many cases, having your verdict overturned doesn't preclude the prosecutor from trying the case again.
- tiahura 4y agoAnother botched case by the liberal hero Andrew Weismann.
- gumboza 4y agoFrom experience working with Mazars, they are perfectly capable of destroying their business without the aid of crypto.
- jasonzemos 4y agoThis was the same firm that stood behind the now convicted Trump organization's financial statements.
- fullshark 4y agoIf these crypto firms (especially Binance) collapse I can’t imagine surreptitiously deleting their audit reports in middle of the night will allow them to escape unscathed.