[jezclaremurugan]

Mixed emotions here - on the one hand - its not an accounting firm and they are very clear that it wasn't done in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and so that gives the firm FSS a cop out should anything go wrong. On the other hand - a reputed firm has staked its reputation to do this - and being wrong would destroy their credibility.

[slantyyz]

There's a law firm in Toronto that specializes in tax issues, and in their advertisements on the radio, the reason why they tell you to hire them over an accountant/accounting firm is that they have the benefit of attorney client privilege, whereas an accountant can be compelled to talk to the federal tax agency, etc.

So maybe that's why FSS was hired as opposed to an accounting firm?

[Analemma_]

> a reputed firm has staked its reputation to do this -

Not really. The six numbered statements in "Furthered Details" are pretty much disavowing the entire report. This is one bunch of auditors signalling to other auditors, "We don't stand by this at all, we were just collecting the fees." The other auditors, and actually competent potential clients, will pick up that signal when they read these statements, and know that FSS was just collecting a check to be part of Bitfinex's dog-and-pony show, so it "won't count" as a black mark once Bitfinex implodes.

[ttul]

But what did they actually put their name to? Seems low risk to me with all the conditions.

[jacobush]

I am sure such concerns can be hedged with a fee decent enough. Decent enough to pay some scapegoat or other, should push come to shove.