Sorry to be contrary but... Is that actually true in this case? It seems to me that the fraud was very very simple no? The CEO "lent" money from this business (which was really client money) to another business he controlled. That's not exactly complex or novel. I don't even think there was deception within the company was there, he just told people to do it and they did. It isn't like he played a careful, decade long shell game like Enron. This was the digital equivalent of someone putting their hand in the till...