I believe that frauds like this are a double edged sword when it comes to their public discussion: you want everyone to know it happened, but how much do you really want to explain it? Aren’t you opening the door to copy cat crimes with slight variations if you pour out every detail? And aren’t the firm’s wiping thier collective ass with the public’s trust if they say “let us handle it, it is too complex to explain”?

In that way, you always wind up making the firms look like green eyed monsters trying their damndest to keep issues under wraps and investors out of the loop, when it may in fact be the opposite.

And I further question the correctness of that article based on their explaination of Deloitte & Touche “now being part of closely held DTT”. It was always an affliate, but it not owned by DTT. This comment again demonstrates the fine line you walk in trying to explain to the public how a Swiss Verein works – do you really want to waste four paragraphs of legalese they may not understand anyway?