Document destruction and obstruction of justice: why Arthur Andersen doesn't matter

Abstract

Purpose

To provide guidance to investment companies on document retention policies based on Section 802 of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002, codified as Section 1519 of the United States Code.

Design/methodology/approach

Reviews the conviction of Arthur Andersen for obstruction of justice based on the way the firm implemented its document retention/destruction policy as Enron was collapsing, and the Supreme Court reversal of that conviction. Explains why the Supreme Court decision should no longer guide an investment company's document retention/destruction policy in light of more recently enacted Section 1519, which imposes stiff penalties on anyone who knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, or covers up any record or document with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence any federal investigation, or in contemplation of such a proceeding.

Findings

Suggests a few straightforward rules for an investment company's document retention/destruction policy with a warning to err on the side of caution.

Originality/value

In light of Section 1519, every investment company needs to review its document retention/destruction policy. This article provides useful guidelines for doing so.

Citation

Robbins, P.D. and Huffman, A.G. (2005), "Document destruction and obstruction of justice: why Arthur Andersen doesn't matter", Journal of Investment Compliance, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/15285810510659293