It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Arthur Andersen Conviction Overturned

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the conviction of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm was improper. The unanimous opinion stated that the jury instructions were improper in the sense that they were not detailed enough to allow the jury to correctly determine whether or not the firm obstucted justice.
 



www.washingtonpost.com
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned the conviction of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm for destroying Enron Corp.-related documents before the energy giant's collapse.

In a unanimous opinion, justices said the former Big Five accounting firm's June 2002 obstruction-of-justice conviction _ which virtually destroyed Andersen _ was improper. The decision said jury instructions at trial were too vague and broad for jurors to determine correctly whether Andersen obstructed justice.

"The jury instructions here were flawed in important respects," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The article from the Washington Post states that this is a blow to Bush administration. I'm not so sure of that - a blow to justice and fairness is more accurate in my opinion.

Just one more chapter in a sad & sordid story.

[edit on 5/31/2005 by ChemicalLaser]




posted on May, 31 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   


The decision said jury instructions at trial were too vague and broad for jurors to determine correctly whether Andersen obstructed justice.

How hard can it be to figure out that document shredding is considered obstruction of justice?

I'm not sure what this means, maybe a new trial. If this means they are not resposible, I smell a huge law suit that will probably cost taxpayers lots of money.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Yep, it's just a ridiculous technicality that I'm sure wouldn't have changed the jury's verdict. We'll probably all end up paying for a huge settlement and regardless of what damage they say they've had, they probably got a few hundred new clients out of this.

If I owned a big corporation and they shredded my documents instead of handing them over to the bad guys... alright!!! that's MY accountant!



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
The Arthur Anderson accounting firm was the top of the line. If an audit, financial statements etc. had the stamp of approval from the Arthur Anderson firm the results would be total believability.

In the article it reports that it was after the Securities and Exchange Commission began investigating Enron that the Arthur Anderson firm "put into practice a policy calling for destroying unneeded documentation." That sure sounds as though they had something to hide.

The article also calls into question the destruction of any business files. It would seem to me that whether the destruction of files and other business documents came before investigation or after the investigation has begun would be the deciding factor.

I think that Americans want to see how Enron could get away with their financial policies for so long as to end up in the mess that hurt uncounted numbers of people.

Why didn't the Arthur Anderson firm notice something wrong during the examinations of their books? If it is true that they didn't, that makes me wonder also. If they did and covered up, then I can understand the hurry to get rid of all documents regarding Enron.

My 2 cents

edit for change of name







[edit on 5/31/2005 by Mahree]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I can't say that I followed the Enron case very closely, but based on what I saw, it was a prime example of greed gone wild from the top to the bottom.

I don't want to minimize the loss of those who were bilked, but I saw several on television describing how they lost everything because they followed the advice of their corrupt executives.

However, as W. C. Fields was wont to say, "You can't cheat an honest man." Every bit of advice I have ever heard regarding investments includes the caveat, "Diversify! Diversify! Diversify!" Those who lost everything in the Enron scandal were blinded by their greed to the widely accepted admonitions of history.

As for Arthur Andersen, shredding documents is common corporate practice for many valid security reasons and that act alone does not constitute an obstruction of justice. If the jury was improperly instructed by the court, then their decision might have been unfairly influenced. But, somehow, I doubt that a new trial will yield a different verdict.

[edit on 05/5/31 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Mmmmm.... didn't they become Accenture after the Enron fiaso?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Accenture had also been awarded a HUGE contract (in the $Bil USD) by the department of Homeland Security.

Not that I would suggest the two could be linked



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I can't say that I followed the Enron case very closely, but based on what I saw, it was a prime example of greed gone wild from the top to the bottom.

...

However, as W. C. Fields was wont to say, "You can't cheat an honest man." Every bit of advice I have ever heard regarding investments includes the caveat, "Diversify! Diversify! Diversify!" Those who lost everything in the Enron scandal were blinded by their greed to the widely accepted admonitions of history.

[edit on 05/5/31 by GradyPhilpott]


I haven't followed the whole affair too closely either.

I think there are some innocents here - there were quite a few folks at Enron who lost their entire retirement when the company imploded. Unless I am mistaken, the individual employees didn't have much say or choice in how their retirement contributions were invested. If the company was foolish and didn't diversify that isn't necessarily the employees' fault - I don't know if I could call them greedy.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join