All true. But it does no harm to rinse and repeat these things for people who haven't been as closely involved in this thread as some of us sad sacks, or who have taken an interest recently. We should encourage discussion, I think.
Anyway, I don't think
@Prestwich_Blue was being too serious. Just a little mischievous. The rascal.
I was being slightly mischievous as I know a little of Stefan's history with accountancy firms.
I'm certain he's quite correct that BDO will have been extra cautious about forming an opinion on anything that might fall within the scope of the UEFA/CAS/PL investigations. I'm also fairly confident that we won't have deliberately and knowingly misled them over anything to do with these allegations, as they'd have walked away if so. Similarly, I very much doubt they've willingly cooperated in concealing misleading or even fraudulent financial reporting.
But it isn't necessarily black and white with auditors and the work they carry out. Earlier this year, the Financial Reporting Council, which monitors the work that the larger audit firms carry out, found that only 38% of the BDO audits it sampled met an acceptable standard (either requiring no or little improvement). So nearly 2 out of 3 didn't meet that standard. It's not just about asking questions but asking the right ones and making sure you get unambiguous and full answers, and that are corroborated by evidence where possible.
Auditors carry out audits and seek any information they think they need to form their opinion. That information may be ambiguous however, meaning they have to form a conclusion from imperfect information or they may be downright negligent. You also have to know where to look. I was on the audit team that uncovered the first major insider dealing case. We'd suspected something underhand was going on for a few years but the company involved certainly weren't going to volunteer the information and we couldn't pin it down. Finally, and quite by chance, we got a lead and followed it through.
The alleged fraud at Wirecard for example, centred on a very large cash balance (nearly €2bn) the company claimed it held in the Philippines. Yet that balance appears to have been non-existent. My training and experience was that you always sought what was usually routine confirmation of any bank or other accounts from the institutions holding them. It was pretty well the first thing you did on an audit. Yet it appears that EY, a Tier 1 global firm, didn't do that basic check.
If their sales ledger said that a debtor owed them a significant amount of money, you'd generally confirm the balance with the debtor. In fact you'd usually contact several of the larger debtors. And you'd try to ensure the relevant transactions were valid ones. But that's never a complete guarantee that everything is above board.
TL:DR Yes you can mislead auditors or even be in cahoots with them but there is a middle ground where auditors can be negligent, not ask the right questions or come to the right conclusions from the evidence they have.
