Andersen an Obstruction of Justice

373 Words2 Pages
Anderson: An Obstruction of Justice? 1. Corrupt: Adjective (guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text). Verb (To cause (someone or something) to become dishonest, immoral, etc. To change (something) so that it is less pure or valuable. To change (a book, computer file, etc.) from the correct or original form). The word corrupt was inappropriately applied to the actions of Anderson because what they did was in their policy. 2. The instructions were too vague, in the court’s view, to allow a jury to find obstruction of justice had really occurred. The court found that the instructions were worded in such a way that Andersen could have been convicted without any proof that the firm knew it had broken the law or that there had been a link to any official proceeding that prohibited the destruction of documents. 3. During that time I do believe that the Supreme Court’s opinion in overturning the lower court’s decision was appropriate. 4. SEC and Department of Justice should have tried Andersen as a firm and also should have targeted specific individuals engaged in unlawful acts. 5. While Andersen’s conviction was overturned, I don’t believe that employees of Andersen acted in an ethical manner for in the prosecution’s case top partners in the Andersen Chicago office had permitted Enron to use aggressive accounting practices that were questionable given the nature of Enron’s business. 6. David Duncan was the main witness in the Andersen case. He shredded the documents that were needed for the SEC investigation. Nancy Temple was the legal counsel and attorney in the Anderson’s legal department. She mandated David Duncan to destroy all the documents relating to Enron in order to be safe in the investigation. Therefore Nancy Temple was more responsible for the Andersen

More about Andersen an Obstruction of Justice

Open Document