Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : The ENRON Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (1428)	1/29/2002 12:54:15 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5185

Unlike the financial investigations, which will require forensic accountants to unwind complex transactions, the document shredding gives investigators comparatively simple cases of possible obstruction of justice. In such cases, witnesses are confronted, evidence is collected, the law is checked, and the decision whether to seek an indictment is made. And I just noodlin here, but I think this twit, Eichenwald, is 100% wrong again. His point is that it is easier to pursue a document destruction contempt case that a case of accounting misfeasance. He says that because he neither understands accounting or obstruction of justice. Most probably, it will be reinterated that a person may do what ever he wants to with his own property, unless he is under a court order not to do so. No subpoena had been issued, THERE WAS NO COURT ORDER. Maybe the New York Times could make this guy the fashion editor. AA is a big, smart savvy group of people, who are playing the law they ALLEGEDLY bought, to the fullest extent possible.