From a WaPo newletter (I couldn’t figure out how to link to a public version)
The firm, Mazars, said it did its own investigation internally. And then it ditched Trump. Legal experts say that probably means the very firm that prepares Trump Org documents arrived on its own at findings that are consistent with at least some of the allegations made by investigators.
Related to this, I wonder if the only way to detect the lies was to compare the lending documents to the tax documents.
In that way, the accountants might not have been able to reasonably detect the fraud.
This might be contrasted with actuarial data, where the actuary is getting detailed data at multiple points of time. In that case, it might be harder to fabricate data that meets a fraudulent purpose and also looks realistic, for example, and the actuary might be expected to notice something looks strange.
Or maybe it’s much easier to be defrauded by a company in actuarial work than I imagine it to be.
