On the face of it, prosecutors scored a huge victory on June 15th when a jury, after ten days of deliberation and one (rejected) plea to be released from their task, convicted Andersen, the notorious auditor of Enron, of obstruction of justice. Not only has the decision in effect killed one of the world's largest audit firms, it raises the prospect of more cases to come―with the probable next target the executives behind the bankruptcy of Enron, the biggest corporate collapse in history. Or did they? In practice, the conviction raises as many questions as it answers; and it might mark the end of the process of bringing culprits to justice, not the beginning. The questions fall into several categories: was the government wrong to charge Andersen with obstruction of justice"? Was it wrong to pursue criminal, rather than civil, charges? Does the result increase or reduce the chances of further prosecutions of the malefactors within Enron and Andersen? Will it weaken or strengthen the case for reforming the governance and auditing system that allowed Enron to fail? And, most disturbingly, has anything really changed?
展开▼
