Supreme Court justices question prosecution of Arthur Andersen

[lovuian]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3156242

By MARY FLOOD
WASHINGTON -- The nation's top justices expressed skepticism about Enron prosecutors' conviction of Arthur Andersen and worried about a chilling effect on businesses large and small.

In persuading a Houston jury in 2002 that Arthur Andersen was guilty of obstruction of justice, prosecutors argued the accounting firm committed a crime when it suspected an impending Securities and Exchange Commission investigation of its client Enron, and told employees to start following its document destruction policy just to foil investigators.

During today's arguments, however, Justice Antonin Scalia told Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Michael Dreeben that he found it "weird" that federal statutes could dictate that it's OK to shred documents but not to ask someone else to shred them.

By prosecutors' reasoning, someone like lead Arthur Andersen auditor David Duncan, who pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, could have been convicted for persuading his secretary to shred documents but not for shredding them himself.

"It doesn't make any sense," Scalia said.

Dreeben told the justices that allowing Arthur Andersen to destroy documents when it knew an SEC investigation was inevitable is "the corporate equivalent of seeing something looks like a crime scene and sending someone in, before they get the yellow tape up, to wipe down the fingerprints."

The government lawyer said Andersen did not shred more than a ton of documents because "it had become preoccupied with neatness."

more...

even the Supreme Court is seeing the Enron case as a big farce!!!

[rodeodance]

1. whow-anderson's conviction might be overturned.

[daleo]

2. Kenny Boy's song (coming soon):

We'll sing in the sunshine
We'll laugh every day
We'll sing in the sunshine
And I'll be on my way

[Robert Oak]

3. I think this is fairly complex

I'm not "up" on this but as I recall, by persecuting a corporation
versus individuals in that corporation, they basically wiped it out
and as a result all of the employees lost their jobs and their
retirement and so forth when they weren't responsible it was the executive class.

At the same time, so many outrageous corporate crimes have gone
completely unpunished due to no liability by the board/CEO's
hiding behind corporate definitions.

For example, Ford could produce a "death mobile" yet no individual is criminally responsible.

I don't know what the answer is but since it's corporations and justice
and who really is accountable...this is a very imp. thing to watch.

[GoBlue]

4. Following the Scalia, Kennedy reasoning...

one would also question whether it makes sense to sentence a parent to prison for a crime because their children will be hurt. If people want corporations to be treated like 'persons', then shit happens. Get over it.

[Daphne08]

5. Corporate Personhood should be deemed...

unconstitutional!

Corporations should NOT have the same standing as a person, enjoying the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers never intended this.

[annabanana]

7. I'd be satified if people had the same standing as Corporations..

as babied as they are right now..

[w4rma]

6. If Scalia reverses this he should be impeached, immediately. (nt)

[johnfunk]

10. I'll second that - impeach "Supremo" Crime Family Boss Fat Tony Scalia

He's nothing but a whore for corporatism and dominionism

[sattahipdeep]

8. pre-Enron. enabling piss ant. nt

[sendero]

9. Gee...

.. sounds like the Federal statutes in question should be changed. Rather than let everyone shred documments, perhaps we should let no one.

[lovuian]

11. afternoon Kick!!!

Made front pages in Houston!!!

[Toots]

12. IMO this is not much different than insider trading

:shrug: I just can't find any sympathy for Anderson...