Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States
Citation
544 U.S. 696 (2005). Supreme Court of the United States.
Facts
Arthur Andersen, Enron’s auditor, was indicted for obstruction of justice after its employees destroyed documents relating to Enron while an SEC investigation was underway. The government alleged Andersen “corruptly persuaded” employees to shred documents. The jury convicted, and Andersen — already effectively destroyed — appealed challenging the jury instructions on the elements of the offense.
Issue
Did the jury instructions correctly define “corruptly persuades” and “consciousness of wrongdoing” for purposes of the obstruction statute?
Holding
The Court unanimously reversed the conviction, holding that the jury instructions were constitutionally deficient because they failed to convey that the “consciousness of wrongdoing” requirement means the defendant must be aware that their conduct was wrongful — not merely that they intended to persuade employees to withhold documents.
Rule / Doctrine
“Corruptly persuades” in the obstruction statute requires that the defendant act with consciousness of wrongdoing — an awareness that the persuasion itself is improper. Routine document destruction pursuant to a legitimate document retention policy, even if timed unfortunately, is not obstruction without the corrupt mental state. The instructions were too broad because they did not require a nexus between the persuasion and an officially pending or contemplated proceeding.
Significance
The case limits obstruction liability and is directly relevant to professional responsibility: attorneys who counsel clients on document retention must understand where proper advice ends and corrupt persuasion begins. It also illustrates the criminal consequences of inadequate compliance advice during regulatory investigations.