Labrador,
Re: Joe Berardino's guilt -
One could, with the narrowest of legalistic interpretations say that the man is not guilty, because much of the record of his wrongdoing will have been expunged from the record by Andersen's document retention policy, among other things.
I will refer you to my post from Feb. 6, just after Berardino appeared before Congress:
Message 17019591
What you find there is a very long list of companies gone bad, all with the Andersen stamp of approval. In the subsequent weeks, we found out that Andersen had to settle with authorities in Arizona due to malfeasance regarding the Arizona Baptists.
So, basically what I see is Berardino as the don of one of the largest criminal conspiracies in the world. His leadership has been reprehensible, from the perspective of losses suffered by investors in the publicly traded companies whose stock soared on deliberately misleading auditing reports.
Of course, you may well argue that in the case of the Crooked E or Global Crassing, that Berardino had no direct knowledge of the criminal complicity of the engagement teams. You may further argue that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) provides Berardino a "safe harbor". Criminal defense lawyers will certainly attempt to make that case.
However, by the standards of "the reasonable man", I don't think the objective observer can come away with any other conclusion that Berardino was guilty of criminal misrepresentation of facts, in his role as leader of the entire Andersen firm.
The point you raise about LAPD was an interesting one. However, as a publicly constituted body, I find that it's existence is in no way to be considered in the same light as that of Arthur Andersen. A more apt comparison, IMO, would be Drexel, Burnham Lambert, a rogue investment bank that went down around 1990 with all 19,000 or so hands on board. Capitalism survived, and the firm got what it deserved. The same will be said about Andersen's demise ten years from now.
All the best, Ray |
