Supreme Court Case: Arthur Andersen Vs. US
anticipation of the SEC’s research into the matter. Overall, Enron employees succeeded in destroying over thirty thousand documents before being subpoenaed by the SEC, predictably hindering the investigation. During May of 2002, Arthur Andersen LLP was finally indicted on charges of obstruction of justice by the Southern Texas District Court, served by Michael Chertoff. The jury believed that Arthur Andersen and its employees were in violation of 18 US Code § 1512, a public law which covers “tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant”5, due to the mass destruction of documents in anticipation of the upcoming SEC investigation. This effectively ended the company’s practice as its CPA license was taken away, but Andersen continued to
…show more content…
USA shifted the balance of rights in the companies’ and employees’ favor, because even in a case where it seemed evident that Andersen LLP was guilty of obstruction of justice, Andersen was freed from criminal charges because the Supreme Court ruled that correlation does not imply causation absent of any direct evidence that Andersen employees were knowingly obstructing the SEC investigation. Employees are generally protected unless they are consciously committing unlawful acts, so they can feel safe but obviously still must be careful. Despite the win in the courtroom, Arthur Andersen LLP failed to survive due to its tarnished reputation after the proceedings had ended. Through this case, I have learned a lot about my future in the business world. The first lesson would be that when you are an employee, don’t act robotically; one should think, ask questions, and be mindful of the work that they are doing. You shouldn’t feel uncomfortable when performing any task on the job and what the manager orders may not always be the right thing to do. To my surprise, I also learned that employees have more protection under business law than I initially thought. When I was first researching the case, I thought for sure people
USA shifted the balance of rights in the companies’ and employees’ favor, because even in a case where it seemed evident that Andersen LLP was guilty of obstruction of justice, Andersen was freed from criminal charges because the Supreme Court ruled that correlation does not imply causation absent of any direct evidence that Andersen employees were knowingly obstructing the SEC investigation. Employees are generally protected unless they are consciously committing unlawful acts, so they can feel safe but obviously still must be careful. Despite the win in the courtroom, Arthur Andersen LLP failed to survive due to its tarnished reputation after the proceedings had ended. Through this case, I have learned a lot about my future in the business world. The first lesson would be that when you are an employee, don’t act robotically; one should think, ask questions, and be mindful of the work that they are doing. You shouldn’t feel uncomfortable when performing any task on the job and what the manager orders may not always be the right thing to do. To my surprise, I also learned that employees have more protection under business law than I initially thought. When I was first researching the case, I thought for sure people