Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005)
Primary Holding
The jury instructions in the prosecution of Arthur Andersen LLP for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A) and (B) failed to properly convey the elements required for a conviction of "corrupt persuasion," leading to the reversal of the conviction.
In the case of Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, the Supreme Court decided that the jury wasn't properly instructed on what it means to "corruptly persuade" someone to destroy documents. This is important because it shows that legal standards must be clear when prosecuting companies for wrongdoing, particularly in cases that can affect public trust. For consumers, this ruling helps ensure that companies are held accountable for their actions, especially when it comes to transparency and honesty in financial matters. It’s relevant if you’re ever involved in a situation where a company is accused of hiding information or manipulating records, as it highlights the importance of fair legal processes.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
Energy conglomerate Enron Corporation enlisted Arthur Anderson LLP to audit the statements that it publicly filed and review its internal accounting practices. In response to the serious crisis in which Enron later found itself, Arthur Anderson compiled a team of investigators who worked with in-house counsel at Enron, Nancy Temple. Temple was aware of the likelihood that the SEC would investigate Enron's practices. She asked that Arthur Anderson be reminded of the document retention policy at Enron, of which employees were informed during a general training course. Temple notified the Arthur Andersen team when the SEC sent it a notice of investigation, and she attached the document retention policy to the email. She also reminded them about the policy during a conference call on the following day. In two later meetings, her supervisor stressed the importance of complying with the policy. Despite these repeated reminders, many paper and electronic documents were destroyed, including for a week after the SEC opened its formal investigation. When the SEC finally subpoenaed the documents, Arthur Andersen was indicted for violating laws against the obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. Section 1512. These prohibit knowingly corrupt persuasion of persons that is intended to cause them to withhold documents from a government investigation. Arthur Andersen was convicted in the trial court.
Whether the jury instructions in a conviction for "corrupt persuasion" under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A) and (B) properly conveyed the elements required for such a conviction.
The judgment is reversed.
Arthur Andersen's ability to avoid liability because of the vague jury instructions likely spurred Congress to enact the Sarbanes-Oxley laws that criminalized this type of conduct more specifically. The accounting firm was destroyed by the negative publicity, notwithstanding the reversal of the conviction.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- April 27, 2005
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Rehnquist
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209 (2005)
Consumer LostConviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. §1956(h) does not require proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005)
Consumer LostA scheme to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue constitutes a violation of the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, as the statute's plain terms criminalize such conduct without infringing upon the common-law revenue rule.
Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (2005)
Consumer LostA defendant's guilty plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and a conviction may be overturned if the prosecution later adopts a theory of the case that is inconsistent with the one presented during the defendant's trial.
Bell v. Thompson, 545 U.S. 794 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Court of Appeals abused its discretion by withholding its mandate for more than five months after the denial of certiorari without entering a formal order.