That is what it is,paper work issues.

My limited knowledge of this is the accountant and the accounting firm are fully capable of noticing flaws and missing info on records and to do their job they should follow up.

"They are not required nor do they have the expertise to evaluate the client’s assets."
I don't know if that is true. I could ask one of my neighbors, when she comes over. She's a senior accountant at one of the big, 'more trustworthy' accounting firms.
Always like her stories, if she's not getting too technical. She also worked for the tax authorities. She found them to be very amateurish, authoritarian and suffering from favoritism. She finally left over the working atmosphere.
--------------------------------------- added after 114 hours

My neighbor came over this weekend. I asked her if companies can easily scam the taxpayer or banks, by misrepresenting their asset values. She said it depends on the type of audit and type of company. If the company has share holders and/or investors, asset values are more important in the audits. In any case if asset values are documented in the audit an accountant takes responsibility for the correctness of the values. That doesn't mean the accountant has to appraise the assets, that means there should be documents supporting that the asset values are correct, from a legitimate appraiser. Still, an experienced accountant should know what assets are worth. She found a mistake in an asset value not so long ago. She went to the colleague who filled in the asset value, saying "This value can't be correct.", a company in that sector, with that size and turnover, must be worth a lot more, unless they sell from a tent. He doubled down on it, because it is his specialty, but when she made him look into his underlying documents, it was quickly clear that he made an error.

She has made her career finding errors like this, but also much bigger more serious problems. She's constantly stepping on long toes, because she's a colored woman and many white men still don't like to be criticized, by women in general and especially 'black' women. She was confronted by her superior, not so long ago for pointing out in a meeting for process improvement, that their process for choosing sample groups was lacking. It presented duplicates and it was not clear that the sample groups were representative for the population. The man responsible for that hadn't slept for three nights, because of that 'criticism'. He would have wanted that shortcoming pointed out privately. However, he agreed when she asked him if this issue was not exactly what the meetings were intended for.

Why should our soldiers risk life or limb because some people ignore the warning from their president?