If the past 30 years of history have taught anything, it is that white‐collar offenders often run afoul of the law by their participation in cover‐ups rather than their part in a substantive criminal offenses. In August 1974, President Richard Nixon was forced to resign as President of the United States ‐ not because of the Watergate break in itself, but his attempts to cover it up. President Clinton was impeached and narrowly avoided indictment ‐ not for his sexual escapades with Monica Lewinsky, but his attempt to redefine the word “is” during his testimony at a deposition. Recently, we have seen the demise of Arthur Andersen, LLP ‐ not as the result of a securities fraud conviction, but a conviction for obstruction of justice. Frank Quattrone was indicted recently for allegedly counseling the destruction of documents, and Martha Stewart was indicted, not for insider trading or the alleged conduct that first brought her under the microscope of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and Department of Justice (“DOJ”), but allegedly for misleading federal agents. This article will review the current round of indictments against Wall Street luminaries for obstruction, as well as the new obstruction provisions of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act. It then will make some observations on how these events should impact a corporation’s document retention policy. Finally, it will discuss how compliance programs that aim to enforce the laws of this country and assist governmental inquiries may actually ensnare corporation employees in an obstruction trap.
Article navigation
1 April 2003
Viewpoint|
April 01 2003
It’s the cover‐up that will get you!
Frank C. Razzano
Frank C. Razzano
Partner, Dickstein, Shapiro, Mohn & Oshinsky LLP, 2101 L Street, NW Washington, DC, USA; razzanof@dsmo.com
Search for other works by this author on:
Publisher: Emerald Publishing
Online ISSN: 1758-7476
Print ISSN: 1528-5812
© MCB UP Limited
2003
Journal of Investment Compliance (2003) 4 (2): 39–44.
Citation
Razzano FC (2003), "It’s the cover‐up that will get you!". Journal of Investment Compliance, Vol. 4 No. 2 pp. 39–44, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/15285810310813112
Download citation file:
New and popular articles
Suggested Reading
Investment adviser: Failure of duty to supervise
Journal of Investment Compliance (July,2004)
How much (and how conflicted) is that portfolio manager in the window? Implications of the SEC proposed rule on enhanced portfolio management disclosure for registered investment companies
Journal of Investment Compliance (July,2004)
The Use of fraud examiners in the battle against occupational fraud and abuse
Journal of Investment Compliance (July,2004)
The Benefits and potential pitfalls of cooperating with regulatory agencies and the government: How to navigate the minefield
Journal of Investment Compliance (July,2004)
The independence of financial analysts: evaluation of an alternative proposal
Journal of Investment Compliance (July,2003)
Related Chapters
Innovation Policy in an Interacted World – The Critical Role of the Context
No Business is an Island: Making Sense of the Interactive Business World
Budget Investments in Russia: Not Investment but Transformation of Public Property
The Spread of Financial Sophistication through Emerging Markets Worldwide
Green Bonds as Catalysts for Sustainable Development: Strategies and Implications for India
Green Technologies and Sustainable Development: Coherent Strategies for Developing Countries
Recommended for you
These recommendations are informed by your reading behaviors and indicated interests.
