Going the Wrong Path by Arthur Weissmann

“What major corporation is now going to gamble that the Justice Department is going to go away and issue a declination? That’s one of the reasons you are seeing a dramatic rise in deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements.”Īn improper prosecution that cost people and communities in the U.S. “One of the fallouts from Andersen is that corporations are much more willing to say yes to deferred prosecution agreements, because they can see what happened to Andersen,” Weissmann said. He believes that as a result of the Andersen prosecution, more and more corporations are jumping at deferred and non-prosecution agreements when offered. “People need to remember that Andersen had been offered a deferred prosecution agreement and rejected it.” “The company through its choices had given the Department of Justice an ‘all or nothing’ ultimatum,” Weissmann said. Weissmann defends the prosecution of Andersen against a growing consensus in the defense bar that the firm should not have been prosecuted. In the Corporate Crime Reporter article, Weissman is asked about his decision to prosecute Andersen: Peter Lattman - whose WSJ Law Blog has quickly become essential daily reading on business law matters - points us to this Corporate Crime Reporter article on former Enron Task Force director Andrew Weissmann, who is leaving the Justice Department for a position in the white collar criminal defense section of Jenner & Block.Īs this Mary Morrison article explains in detail, Weissmann’s dubious decision to prosecute American accounting icon Arthur Andersen out of business over the firm’s work for Enron was an egregious breach of prosecutorial discretion.

Going the Wrong Path by Arthur Weissmann