The Enron scandal that shook the world in October 2001, was probably the most resonant event of the kind in the whole history of the United States. Enron, one of the largest energy suppliers in the world, was accused of unfair and illegal financial policies, and the highest officials of the company were subsequently indicted. The very point about the Enron scandal was that the newly hired manager Jeffrey Skilling created an illegal system, using which several additionally hired auditors and accountants used poor financial reporting practices to hide billions of Enron debts and make it look like a profitable company to the investors (Dharan, 2004, pp. 1 – 2). As the closer analysis of the situation reveals, the major role in the scandal, apart from the Enron CEO, Jeffrey Skilling, and their colleagues, should be attributed to the auditors that supervised the company’s work and the investment banks that did nothing to at least monitor the performance of the company or reveal that its financial records do not conform to the actual conditions of Enron’s banking accounts. The movie The Smartest Guys in the Room also illustrates this point, serving as a detailed documentary account of the whole context in which the Enron scandal became possible (The Smartest Guys in the Room, 2005). Moreover, the movie shows that the alleged power of the U.S. antitrust regulations is, or was in 2001, only an illusion of power, as they did not provide actual protection for investors from such large-scale illegal activities as the Enron scandal. In more detail, the Enron scandal was the cause of the huge loss, over $11 billion, that the company’s investors experienced after putting their money into Enron. They obtained the reports about the exclusively positive character of the company’s business and we’re sure that investing in Enron would enlarge their capital (Dharan, 2004, p. 4). As one can see, the U. S. antitrust regulations did not manage to protect investors and other, even minor stakeholders of Enron. To provide more adequate legal support to the potential victims of similar illegal activities, the U.S. Congress adopted the so-called Sarbanes – Oxley Act (Dharan, 2004, p. 11). More specifically, the Sarbanes – Oxley Act was the legal document adopted on July 30, 2002, and named after its two major promoters, Paul Sarbanes and Michael Oxley (Dharan, 2004, p. 11). The major goal of this legal action was to protect society from economic and financial crimes like the one observed during the Enron scandal. The main drawback of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act is its applicability to state-run companies only, while the private companies cannot be regulated or investigated on this act’s basis (Sarbanes – Oxley Act, 2002). In more detail, the Sarbanes – Oxley Act consists of 11 major sections, or titles, that regulate the financial activities within the framework of the U.S. legislation. Seemingly, the most important of those titles rule that the auditing of any company should be carried out by independent agencies, while the company’s highest officials must quarterly report all results of their financial activities (Sarbanes – Oxley Act, 2002). But even though the Sarbanes – Oxley Act was a huge step towards the legal protection of investors, it still has numerous drawbacks. Among other points, it is not stipulated how the independence of the auditing agency