2.) Yes, I do not think there should be a sense of a CPA protecting a client when there is fraud/crime. The whole nature of why someone seeks a CPA is to stay within the boundaries of what is legal and anything contrary to that is defying which a CPA is morally obligated. When a CPA faces this situation I dont think a CPA should be required to turn in a client but if that CPA turns out documents that are false, then that CPA assumes responsibly in a crime that is happening.
3.) Its a little hard to relate to this CPA Jess in the sense that he choose to push the limits of what is legal and when is not. But with the assumption that one day I found myself being in the middle of an investigation I would comply with the authorities on what information they have requested per a warrant or with the permission of my client. I would not agree to be a controlled informant, this to me goes against the intent of what it is to be a CPA, only when required by law would I disclose this to third parties. The parties affected are IRS, which would need to find a legal avenue to require me to act as informant or a different way to build their case on my client. The other party affected would be me Jess. I wouldnt be able to have legal action against myself from tax scheme (to IRS) because I chose to not be a controlled informant.