External auditors, engaged by the audit committee, are responsible for ensuring that accounting reports are complete and objective, and in the case of Satyam, PwC failed to meet its role of external and objective auditor. The evidence may lead one to believe that PwC was aware of the fraud but refused to reveal it due to the increasing audit fees provided by Satyam. PwC's fault lies mainly in the failure to verify liquidity and bank balances. According to a statement released by PwC, its auditors simply relied on the books prepared by the company and did not further investigate the data presented to them. The auditors did not verify the existence of fictitious fixed deposits and certified the good reputation of Satyam. Not only did PwC fail to carry out its duty to provide accurate information to shareholders, but it also played a major role in perpetrating the fraud by certifying a pristine audit report for fraudulent and manipulated books. Another important aspect was the compensation paid by Satyam to PwC. In fact, between 2003 and 2008, the rate was increased three times, reaching almost double the average pay of comparable companies in the same industry (TCS, Infosys and Wipro). This evidence indicates that PwC was purchased to comply with the fraudulent practices adopted within Satyam and ensure that the