Authorities might not be able to seize computers and files in another country, although I think interpol can get involved in tax fraud or tax evasion matters.
Preventing access to your accounts during an audit is quite fishy, especially for an onsite audit without warning which, in France, is supposed to happen only if the authorities have doubts that you could make some evidences disappear. During an audit, the CEO is supposed to provide the documents, the inspectors are not supposed to access your files themselves I think.
(So blocking access for security reasons is bullshit, to answer someone else, the right thing to do is to have all the pieces in order for when an audit happens anyway)
Unless it’s legally mandatory in such a way that superior authorities can’t overrule it, then it doesn’t seem to matter? (such as the President, appellate courts, etc…)
Clearly in this case Uber got a superior authority to do so, and in any future case that will still be a likely possibility.
Preventing access to your accounts during an audit is quite fishy, especially for an onsite audit without warning which, in France, is supposed to happen only if the authorities have doubts that you could make some evidences disappear. During an audit, the CEO is supposed to provide the documents, the inspectors are not supposed to access your files themselves I think.
(So blocking access for security reasons is bullshit, to answer someone else, the right thing to do is to have all the pieces in order for when an audit happens anyway)