In a retrospect, the corporate fraud committed by Enron was deemed as one of the greatest scandals in the history of the business and finance realm not because of its scale or magnitude but because of the circumstances that caused it. Instead, it is the glaring denial of the contemporary principles of corporate ethics making the foundation of financial transactions and the lack of concern for the entrepreneurship as an extension of one’s business progress that makes the case of Enron so shockingly unbelievable ( History of Enron Corporation 2015). Enron’s background was rather impressive. The company used to be one of the global leaders in the gas and electricity production field (McLean & Elkind 2013). Particularly, the organization used to supply natural gas liquids to all corners of the world. In addition, Enron also gained quite a reputation of an innovator for promoting the use of alternative energy sources, such as solar and wind energy. Moreover, the company did not shy away from taking innovative trading products, including the futures related to gas and weather. As a result, Enron literally reinvented the utility industry, paving the way to new and exciting explorations. The company’s demise, however, was inevitable. Arthur Andersen, one of the partners that Enron’s existence revolved around, and who contributed the most to its untimely demise, should be mentioned as the key figure in the infamous fraud case. An accounting firm, whom the entrepreneurship trusted with audits and analyses of the firm’s financial transactions, Arthur Andersen was responsible for providing reports on the key financial changes that occurred to the organization (Chandler 2014). When it comes to identifying the point at which the premises for the corporate fraud to occur emerged, one must mention the fact that the relationships between Enron and Arthur Andersen became very informal once Andersen exerted its influence on Enron. In other words, Arthur Andersen became acceptable of Enron’s culture to the point where the organization’s members could overlook the build-up for an instance of a major fraud (Herrick & Barrionuevo 2002). Run by Ken Lay at that point, the Enron Company switched from its traditional concept of business ethics to a more morally ambiguous one. It is quite remarkable, though, that the era of Ken Lay’s leadership was marked with an incredibly fast rise in the firm’s revenue: “A meteoric rise in both reputation and stock value followed, with Enron named as one of Fortunes’ most admired companies in 2001 and its stock price peaking at $90.56 a share on August 23, 2000” (Sundem 2003, p. 1). Nevertheless, the approach that Lay adopted could be deemed as the development of the platform for Enron to steer off the traditional ethical path and consider the idea of a financial fraud. However, merely changing the ethical principles in accordance with which Enron operated was not enough. Apart from developing the platform for the change to occur on, the people involved needed to alter the principle of accounting adopted in the firm so that the environment for fraudulence could be designed. Specifically, the necessity to switch from the current standard to the Mark-to-Mark approach could be viewed as the key element of the prepar