In an analysis by the Association of Certified Financial Crime Specialists (ACFCS) about the Autonomy merger with HP, the following statement is made: The scandal is prompting questions about who is to blame for the soured merger. As details emerge, the case is spotlighting the difficulties that accountants and lawyers face in complex mergers and acquisitions and business deals. The case also raises the issue of what responsibility these professionals have for detecting potentially fraudulent business records where the line between accounting discrepancies and financial crime is blurred.

Given the facts of the case, do you believe Deloitte met its obligations with regard to due care and professional judgment? Explain. Meg Whitman is quoted in the case as saying that the board, which approved the Autonomy transaction, relied on audited information from Deloitte & Touche and additional auditing from KPMG. Given that auditing standards and legal requirements dictate that auditors are responsible for detecting material fraud in the financial statements of audit clients, would you blame the auditors for failing to uncover the improper accounting for revenue at Autonomy? Which audit and ethical standards are critical in making that determination?

Do you believe a conflict of interest exists when audit firms earn about as much money from nonaudit services as audit services, given they are expected to make independent judgments on the financial transactions and financial reporting of their audit clients? Explain by using the Autonomy case as one such example of a possible conflict.