Connect with us

Accounting

Prager Metis to pay $1.95M to SEC for FTX audits and independence violations

Published

2 years ago

on

Prager Metis CPAs agreed to pay $1.95 million to settle charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission over auditor negligence for its work for the now shuttered crypto exchange FTX, as well as auditor independence violations.

The SEC charged the Top 100 Firm nearly a year ago with violating auditor independence rules on more than 200 audits, reviews and exams. The firm was also one of the targets of a lawsuit by an FTX investor in 2022 following the high-profile collapse of the crypto exchange. The SEC has been looking into the auditing firm’s role in overlooking the problems at the troubled crypto company. Prager Metis undertook an audit of the financial statements of FTX, which was then one of the world’s largest crypto asset trading platforms, in February 2021. But less than two years later, in November 2022, FTX collapsed, wiping out billions in investor equity and billions more in misappropriated customer deposits.  

In one of the actions, the SEC alleges that Prager misrepresented its compliance with auditing standards regarding FTX. According to the SEC’s complaint, from February 2021 to April 2022, Prager issued two audit reports for FTX falsely misrepresenting that the audits complied with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. 

Prager Metis offices

The SEC claimed Prager Metis failed to follow GAAS as well as its own policies and procedures by, among other deficiencies, not adequately assessing whether it had the competency and resources to undertake the audit of FTX. According to the complaint, this quality control failure led to Prager Metis failing to comply with GAAS in multiple aspects of the audit — most significantly by failing to understand the increased risk stemming from the relationship between FTX and Alameda Research LLC, a crypto hedge fund controlled by FTX’s CEO.

“The foundational failure to meet GAAS stemmed from the fact that the Prager Metis engagement partner fundamentally did not understand FTX, or the crypto asset markets in which it operated,” said the SEC complaint. “In its rush to accept FTX as an audit client, Prager Metis assembled an engagement team that collectively lacked the competence, experience and knowledge to appropriately conduct the audits. From this initial failure flowed a series of other auditing failures in the design and execution of the audits.”

The SEC’s complaint charges Prager Metis with negligence-based fraud. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Prager Metis agreed to permanent injunctions, to pay a $745,000 civil penalty, and to undertake remedial actions, including retaining an independent consultant to review and evaluate its audit, review, and quality control policies and procedures and abiding by certain restrictions on accepting new audit clients. The settlement is subject to court approval.

“Effective investor protection requires a collaborative approach that includes both regulators and gatekeepers such as auditors,” said Gurbir Grewal, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, in a statement Tuesday. “To fulfill their role, auditors must, among other things, be independent, exercise due professional care and skepticism, and comply with all applicable professional standards. As we allege in these enforcement actions, Prager Metis fell short in all of these areas. Because Prager’s audits of FTX were conducted without due care, for example, FTX investors lacked crucial protections when making their investment decisions. Ultimately, they were defrauded out of billions of dollars by FTX and bore the consequences when FTX collapsed. By limiting Prager’s ability to take on new business and by requiring it to retain an independent compliance consultant, today’s resolutions not only enhance investor protection, they also serve as a warning to audit professionals that are not appropriately meeting their gatekeeping obligations.”

Prager Metis did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The SEC also announced Tuesday that the Prager Entities, which collectively include New York-based Prager Metis CPAs LLC and its California professional services firm, Prager Metis CPAs LLP, agreed to the entry of final judgments to settle separate, previous charges for violating auditor independence rules and for aiding and abetting their clients’ violations of federal securities laws. The SEC’s complaint alleged that, between around December 2017 and October 2020, the Prager Entities improperly included indemnification provisions in engagement letters for more than 200 audits, reviews and exams and, as a result, were not independent from their clients, as required under the federal securities laws. 

The SEC alleged that Prager continued to sign engagement letters containing indemnification provisions and also issued “accountant’s reports” in which it purported to be independent in connection with its audits and exams, even after Prager’s senior partners repeatedly were notified that inclusion of indemnification provisions in engagement letters rendered Prager not independent. Many of Prager’s clients included those “accountant’s reports” in their filings with the SEC. Prager allegedly also failed to advise its clients of its violations, even after the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board informed Prager that the indemnification provisions violated the independence requirements of the federal securities laws.

The final judgments provide for permanent injunctions, combined civil penalties of $1 million, and combined disgorgement with prejudgment interest of $205,000. The Prager Entities also agreed to be censured. The settlement is subject to court approval.

“Auditor independence is critical to investor protection and a fundamental cornerstone of the integrity of our financial markets,” said Eric Bustillo, director of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office, in a statement. “We are committed to this principle, and we will hold accountable auditors who violate their independence requirements.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Accounting

AI-Driven Automation and Continuous Accounting Frameworks

Published

6 days ago

on

August 15, 2026

By

The accounting profession is undergoing a fundamental structural transition as enterprise finance departments shift from periodic month-end closes toward automated continuous accounting models. By integrating specialized machine learning algorithms directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, chief accounting officers are transforming financial reporting from a retrospective exercise into a real-time operational asset.

The Shift from Periodic Close to Continuous Financial Reporting
Traditional accounting workflows heavily relied on manual data reconciliation, spreadsheet calculations, and multi-week closing cycles at the end of each fiscal period. In contrast, continuous accounting frameworks utilize automated software agents to process, validate, and post transactional data in real time as business activities occur.

Automated bank reconciliation tools cross-reference incoming bank feeds, invoice records, and purchase orders automatically. By resolving transactional variances instantly throughout the month, corporate accounting teams eliminate the traditional workload spikes associated with quarterly and annual closes.

Machine Learning in Audit Trails and Anomaly Detection
Advanced natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning tools are redefining internal audit and financial control environments. Automated systems analyze 100% of general ledger entries, identifying anomalous transactions, duplicate payments, and unauthorized journal entries in real time.

Rather than relying on random statistical sampling, corporate internal auditors can focus their attention on high-risk flags automatically surfaced by algorithmic monitoring platforms. This continuous risk assessment strengthens internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) and significantly reduces fraud risk.

Evolving Roles for Accounting Professionals
As routine data entry and manual reconciliation tasks become fully automated, the skill set required for accounting professionals is shifting toward data analysis, system design, and strategic business advisory.
– Systems Governance: Accountants are increasingly responsible for monitoring algorithmic accuracy and managing data integration pipelines.
– Business Partnership: Finance professionals leverage real-time financial dashboards to advise operational leaders on margin management and working capital allocation.
– Regulatory Compliance Management: Accounting teams utilize automated platforms to ensure compliance with dynamic tax codes and international accounting standards.

Core Implementation Recommendations
1. Deploy Automated Reconciliation Tools: Integrate continuous transaction processing modules into existing enterprise ERP architectures.
2. Establish Algorithmic Governance Controls: Implement strict internal testing protocols to ensure automated accounting rules comply with GAAP/IFRS standards.
3. Reskill Accounting Teams: Invest in training finance staff on data analytics, workflow automation, and predictive financial modeling.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Global ESG Reporting Standards and Double Materiality Compliance

Published

2 weeks ago

on

August 9, 2026

By

Corporate accounting departments face expanding reporting expectations as international sustainability disclosure standards achieve regulatory enforcement across major global jurisdictions. Chief Accounting Officers (CAOs) and corporate controllers are establishing rigorous internal accounting controls to treat Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics with the same data precision, auditability, and governance as traditional financial statements.

Regulatory Harmonization Under Global Sustainability Frameworks
The implementation of standardized sustainability reporting frameworks—notably rules established by international sustainability accounting boards—has created unified expectations for public and large private enterprises. Corporations must report standardized metrics covering greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3), energy utilization, workforce demographics, and supply chain governance.

In Europe and other participating international jurisdictions, double materiality principles are mandatory. Under double materiality, organizations must report both how external sustainability risks impact corporate financial performance, and how internal corporate operations affect surrounding environmental and social structures.

Integrating Sustainability Metrics into Core ERP Systems
To provide auditable non-financial data, enterprise organizations are integrating specialized carbon accounting and ESG management platforms directly into core ERP systems. Automated data collectors capture energy utility invoices, logistics fuel consumption metrics, and vendor compliance records in real time.

Establishing automated, traceable data pipelines ensures that non-financial reporting is supported by clear audit trails. This structured approach allows external financial auditors to provide reasonable assurance on sustainability disclosures during annual corporate reporting cycles.

Financial Impacts and Capital Market Disclosure
Accurate ESG reporting directly influences corporate cost of capital and institutional credit ratings. Commercial lenders and institutional asset managers systematically incorporate sustainability metrics into risk pricing models. Companies that demonstrate transparent, verifiable progress in operational energy efficiency and climate risk mitigation benefit from expanded access to green bond markets and lower debt pricing.

Action Steps for Accounting Leadership
1. Implement Double Materiality Frameworks: Conduct comprehensive assessments to identify material financial and operational sustainability metrics.
2. Build Auditable Non-Financial Data Pipelines: Automate ESG data collection within core accounting software to ensure data integrity.
3. Align Sustainability with Annual Financial Filings: Prepare non-financial disclosures concurrently with financial statements to satisfy regulatory audit expectations.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Modernizing Internal Controls: Machine Learning and Continuous Monitoring in Auditing

Published

2 weeks ago

on

August 5, 2026

By

Internal audit departments and corporate risk managers are modernizing internal control frameworks by shifting from periodic sampling techniques to continuous monitoring and machine learning analytics. As operational data volumes increase across enterprise organizations, automated control testing ensures financial integrity, prevents corporate fraud, and streamlines annual audit engagements.

The Limitation of Periodic Audit Sampling
Historically, internal and external auditors evaluated internal controls by reviewing random samples of financial transactions—often analyzing less than five percent of total ledger entries. In complex enterprise environments, periodic sampling methods carry inherent risks of overlooking localized financial misstatements, unauthorized disbursements, or operational control breakdowns.

In 2026, progressive internal audit functions are utilizing automated continuous monitoring platforms that evaluate one hundred percent of financial transactions in real time. Continuous control auditing systems continuously monitor general ledger entries, procurement approvals, and expense reimbursements across all operating subsidiaries.

AI-Powered Fraud Detection and Anomaly Identification
Machine learning models trained on historical corporate financial data excel at identifying subtle transactional anomalies that indicate potential fraud or operational error. Automated systems instantly flag duplicate invoice payments, unapproved vendor creation, unusual journal entry timing, and unauthorized override of authority thresholds.

When an anomaly is detected, the automated auditing platform generates an instant risk alert, allowing internal audit teams to investigate root causes immediately. Early detection prevents minor operational errors from escalating into material weaknesses in financial reporting.

Streamlining External Audit Preparation
Continuous internal control monitoring delivers significant benefits during annual external financial audits. External audit firms can review continuous audit logs and automated control testing documentation, reducing the time required for manual field testing.

This integrated approach lowers overall audit compliance fees, reduces administrative burdens on corporate accounting staff, and provides senior management and audit committees with real-time visibility into the organization’s overall risk profile.

Core Implementation Guidelines
1. Transition to 100% Data Testing: Replace legacy sampling methods with automated continuous audit monitoring systems.
2. Deploy Anomaly Detection Algorithms: Implement machine learning models to identify unauthorized transactions and operational control overrides.
3. Align Internal and External Audit Workflows: Coordinate continuous control testing protocols with external auditors to optimize annual compliance cycles.

Continue Reading

Trending