Il caso Enron e l'incriminazione dell'Arthur Andersen

• 
• 

Dettagli

Pubblicato Martedì, 11 Gennaio 2005 00:00

Scritto da admin

Il Dipartimento di Giustizia degli Stati Uniti ha avviato una inchiesta penale federale sul crack della Enron, il più colossale fallimento della storia statunitense (quasi 50 miliardi di dollari)

- Premessa: il caso Enron

Il Dipartimento di Giustizia degli Stati Uniti ha avviato una inchiesta penale federale sul crack della Enron, il più colossale fallimento della storia statunitense (quasi 50 miliardi di dollari), causato - sembrerebbe - da una serie di operazioni finanziarie che hanno portato una parte del management a "svuotare" la società trasferendo ingentissime quantità di risorse finanziarie a "entità finanziarie" esterne che le hanno dissipate.

Enron, che era stata fondata nel 1995 e che poco prima del dissesto contava 20mila dipendenti - molti dei quali licenziati nelle settimane immediatamente successive -, prima del crack era il principale trader mondiale di gas naturale e il primo produttore di energia elettrica degli Stati Uniti.  Tra le altre commodities scambiate sul sistema online di Enron erano presenti anche carbone, cellulosa, plastica, metalli e banda di trasmissione su fibre ottiche.
Il 2 dicembre 2001 la società di Houston fu costretta ad ammettere il dissesto dei propri conti e a chiedere l'inserimento nell'amministrazione controllata insieme a 19 delle sue controllate, in base al Capitolo 11 della legge fallimentare statunitense. Il "buco" era emerso durante i falliti colloqui per la fusione con la sua principale rivale, la Dynegy controllata dal gigante del petrolio Chevron Texaco.

- L'incriminazione dell'Arthur Andersen

La società di revisione contabile Arthur Andersen ha rifiutato un'ammissione di colpevolezza per la distruzione di documenti sullo scandalo Enron.

In questo modo ha aperto la strada all'incriminazione formale da parte del Dipartimento di Giustizia per "ostruzione alla giustizia", avvenuta il 14 marzo u.s..
L'indictment fa riferimento alla distruzione di documenti, cartacei ed elettronici, sotto la guida dei vertici del gruppo, iniziata attorno al 10 ottobre 2001, quando la società era a conoscenza della rilevanza dei documenti per la vicenda Enron.
La Andersen ha subito fatto rilevare, come vedremo nel proseguo, l'infondatezza fattuale e giuridica dell'accusa: il reato ipotizzato non è configurabile sub specie iuris e comunque unico responsabile sarebbe l'ufficio di Houston, incaricato della revisione dei conti Enron, mentre i vertici erano all'oscuro.
Mi sembra interessante svolgere qualche osserazione generale sulla vicenda, avuto riguardo da un lato alle Federal Sentencing Guidelines statunitensi e dall'altro alle iniziative difensive concretamente intraprese dalla società incriminata.
Va ulteriormente premesso che le corti statunitensi seguono prevalentemente la teoria della c.d. vicarious liability: l'ente risponde in relazione ai reati commessi dai suoi organi, agenti, dipendenti in generale (respondeat superior).
L'esistenza di procedure che limitino il "rischio-reati" e di controlli interni effettivi non costituisce un'esimente, ma può portare ad una sostanziosa riduzione della sanzione.

1)      Il reato ipotizzato: l'ostruzione alla giustizia

I difensori della società hanno prontamente replicato all'accusa mettendo in evidenza la giuridica inammissibilità dell'imputazione.Dal comunicato Andersen del 13 marzo 2002:

"B. The conduct alleged is not criminal. In addition to its factual deficiencies, the indictment does not establish that a crime was committed by anyone. The offense alleged is obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b), which makes it a crime for anyone to "corruptly persuade" "another person to destroy documents "with intent to impair" the use of documents "in an official proceeding." These elements are not present here, for several reasons.The indictment does not show that that anyone acted with criminal intent. Andersen personnel who destroyed documents may well have acted, not to frustrate any SEC inquiry, but to comply with the Andersen document policy at a time when their work was coming under scrutiny by senior accountants within the firm. That policy directed firm personnel to document and preserve their audit workpapers in one central file and to dispose of all other work product, such as e-mails, drafts, and        personal notes. The policy required that these non-essential materials be destroyed as they became expendable during an engagement and no later than when the central file was finalized. The policy added that, in the event Andersen is "advised of litigation or subpoenas regarding a particular engagement, the related information should not be destroyed." But the policy did not expressly address those circumstances in which Andersen is not a party to litigation or the subject of a government investigation. There was no "official proceeding" going on to obstruct. The indictment alleges that Andersen personnel intended to impair the SEC informal inquiry relating to Fastow's related party transactions. But the SEC letter that was sent on October 17, which simply asked for information from Enron and specifically stated that "[t]he Commission has not determined that the matters hereby under inquiry involve violations of  the federal securities laws," plainly was too informal and preliminary        to qualify as an "official proceeding" within the meaning of the statute. See United States v. Shively, 927 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1991).Under the governing law, there were no "corrupt" methods used to persuade anyone to destroy documents. That makes the government's theory insupportable.

Concetto ben diverso è l'ostruzione alla giustizia, per così dire "fattuale", vale a dire l'ostruzione alle indagini, una volta che la società è stata incriminata.

Le F.S.G. contengono alcune previsioni aggravanti in queste ipotesi (§8C2.5-Culpability Score):

"(e) Obstruction of Justice
If the organization willfully obstructed or impeded, attempted to obstruct or impede, or aided, abetted, or encouraged obstruction of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense, or, with knowledge thereof, failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such obstruction or impedance or attempted obstruction or impedance, (add 3 points)".
Nelle note esplicative si specifica che:
"9.Subsection (e) applies where the obstruction is committed on behalf of the organization; it does not apply where an individual or individuals have attempted to conceal their misconduct from the organization".

2)      rilevanza della collaborazione e dell'ammissione di colpevolezza
Sulla cooperazione nelle indagini del Dipartimento di Giustizia e sulle iniziative pro futuro
si legga il comunicato del 10 gennaio 2002:
"Andersen has notified the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, and is also notifying congressional committees and other agencies investigating the Enron collapse, that in recent months individuals in the firm involved with the Enron engagement disposed of a significant but undetermined number of electronic and paper documents and correspondence relating to the Enron engagement".
"The firm also has asked former U.S. Sen. John Danforth to conduct an immediate and comprehensive review of Andersen's records management policy and to recommend improvements".
Nella successiva lettera al Dipartimento di Giustizia del 13 marzo 2002, si legge:

"First, Arthur Andersen LLP has resolved to undertake all of the comprehensive reforms proposed on March 11 by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker and the Independent Oversight Board, including sweeping reorganization of the firm, its structure, its management, and its policies. Of particular relevance to the allegations under investigation, the reforms will result in greater centralization and control of audit teams, a critical change that would prevent the kind of document destruction that occurred this past fall in Houston".

"Further discipline, including immediate separation from the firm of all individuals -  at whatever level - who were responsible for the document destruction or whose failures of oversight and negligence made that destruction possible. We will follow the direction of former Senator John Danforth, who has been advising Arthur Andersen LLP on its document retention policies, to assure that appropriate disciplinary steps are taken against all those who deserve them".
Secondo una prassi consolidata in caso di incriminazione della società, le investigazioni interne per far luce su un illecito societario sono state affidate a consulenti esterni, che raccolgono testimonianze e controllano la documentazione rilevante:
"Second, at the direction of Arthur Andersen LLP, two respected law firms, Davis, Polk & Wardwell and Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, have undertaken a thorough investigation of the events underlying the document destruction. This investigation, which involved interviews with more than 80 persons and review of thousands of documents, revealed that the expedited effort to destroy documents was confined to a relatively few partners and employees of the firm and was almost entirely limited to the Houston office. None of the destruction occurred with the knowledge, much less the consent, of senior firm management. Indeed, even as to those few people who engaged in document destruction, there appears to be a dearth of credible evidence that they acted with the willful criminal intent to obstruct a governmental investigation. In this regard, we believe it is significant that the Justice Department has not revealed any information that is inconsistent with our understanding of the relevant fundamental facts".

La rilevanza di tali condotte è sancita nelle F.S.G. (sempre nel menzionato §8C2.5): 
"(g) Self-Reporting, Cooperation, and Acceptance of Responsibility If more than one applies, use the greatest:
(1) If the organization (A) prior to an imminent threat of disclosure or government investigation; and (B) within a reasonably prompt time after becoming aware of the offense, reported the offense to appropriate governmental authorities, fully cooperated in the investigation, and clearly demonstrated recognition and affirmative acceptance of responsibility for its criminal conduct, (subtract 5 points); or
(2) If the organization fully cooperated in the investigation and clearly demonstrated recognition and affirmative acceptance of responsibility for its criminal conduct, (subtract 2 points); or
(3) If the organization clearly demonstrated recognition and affirmative acceptance of responsibility for its criminal conduct, (subtract 1 point)".
Nelle note esplicative si aggiunge:
"12.To qualify for a reduction under subsection (g)(1) or (g)(2), cooperation must be both timely and thorough. To be timely, the cooperation must begin essentially at the same time as the organization is officially notified of a criminal investigation. To be thorough, the cooperation should include the disclosure of all pertinent information known by the organization. A prime test of whether the organization has disclosed all pertinent information is whether the information is sufficient for law enforcement personnel to identify the nature and extent of the offense and the individual(s) responsible for the criminal conduct. However, the cooperation to be measured is the cooperation of the organization itself, not the cooperation of individuals within the organization. If, because of the lack of cooperation of particular individual(s), neither the organization nor law enforcement personnel are able to identify the culpable individual(s) within the organization despite the organization's efforts to cooperate fully, the organization may still be given credit for full cooperation".
Inoltre, sull'ammissione di colpevolezza:
"13. Entry of a plea of guilty prior to the commencement of trial combined with truthful admission of involvement in the offense and related conduct ordinarily will constitute significant evidence of affirmative acceptance of responsibility under subsection (g), unless outweighed by conduct of the organization that is inconsistent with such acceptance of responsibility. This adjustment is not intended to apply to an organization that puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse. Conviction by trial, however, does not automatically preclude an organization from consideration for such a reduction.
In rare situations, an organization may clearly demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility for its criminal conduct even though it exercises its constitutional right to a trial. This may occur, for example, where an organization goes to trial to assert and preserve issues that do not relate to factual guilt (e,g., to make a constitutional challenge to a statute or a challenge to the applicability of a statute to its conduct). In each such instance, however, a determination that an organization has accepted responsibility will be based primarily upon pretrial statements and conduct". 
3)      rilevanza del coinvolgimento dei vertici e complicazioni dovute alle dimensioni della società e alla sua organizzazione in diversi uffici e sedi

L'accusa, come detto, postula il coinvolgimento diffuso e sistematico dei vertici dell'Andersen nella distruzione dei documenti.
La difesa esclude tale coinvolgimento e limita eventuali responsabilità alla sede di Houston.

In generale, nelle note esplicative al menzionato §8C2.5, è dato leggere:
"First, an organization is more culpable when individuals who manage the organization or who have substantial discretion in acting for the organization participate in, condone, or are willfully ignorant of criminal conduct.
Second, as organizations become larger and their managements become more professional, participation in, condonation of, or willful ignorance of criminal conduct by such management is increasingly a breach of trust or abuse of position.
Third, as organizations increase in size, the risk of criminal conduct beyond that reflected in the instant offense also increases whenever management's tolerance of that offense is pervasive. Because of the continuum of sizes of organizations and professionalization of management, subsection (b) gradually increases the culpability score based upon the size of the organization and the level and extent of the substantial authority personnel involvement".

§8C2.5, lettera b), Involvement in or Tolerance of Criminal Activity
In particolare rileva l'intensità e la diffusione del coinvolgimento del management (pervasiveness)
Nelle note esplicative:
"2.For purposes of subsection (b), "unit of the organization" means any reasonably distinct operational component of the organization. For example, a large organization may have several large units such as divisions or subsidiaries, as well as many smaller units such as specialized manufacturing, marketing, or accounting operations within these larger units. For purposes of this definition, all of these types of units are encompassed within the term "unit of the organization."
Inoltre:
"5.A "separately managed line of business," as used in subsections (c ) and (d), is a subpart of a for-profit organization that has its own management, has a high degree of autonomy from higher managerial authority, and maintains its own separate books of account. Corporate subsidiaries and divisions frequently are separately managed lines of business. Under subsection (c), in determining the prior history of an organization with separately managed lines of business, only the prior conduct or criminal record of the separately managed line of business involved in the instant offense is to be used. Under subsection (d), in the context of an organization with separately managed lines of business, in making the determination whether a violation of a condition of probation involved engaging in similar misconduct, only the prior misconduct of the separately managed line of business involved in the instant offense is to be considered."

4)      rilevanza della preventiva due diligence
La società incriminata potrà ottenere una riduzione se dimostrerà l'esistenza e l'effettiva attuazione di programmi anticrimine.

FSG, §8C2.5:

"(f) Effective Program to Prevent and Detect Violations of Law If the offense occurred despite an effective program to prevent and detect violations of law, (subtract 3 points).
Provided, that this subsection does not apply if an individual within high-level personnel of the organization, a person within high-level personnel of the unit of the organization within which the offense was committed where the unit had 200 or more employees, or an individual responsible for the administration or enforcement of a program to prevent and detect violations of law participated in, condoned, or was willfully ignorant of the offense. Participation of an individual within substantial authority personnel in an offense results in a rebuttable presumption that the organization did not have an effective program to prevent and detect violations of law.
Provided, further, that this subsection does not apply if, after becoming aware of an offense, the organization unreasonably delayed reporting the offense to appropriate governmental authorities".

Dal comunicato del 14 GENNAIO 2002:
"Fifth, and most important, it is beyond question that the institution of criminal felony proceedings would place the survival of Arthur Andersen LLP in grave jeopardy. If the Department's actions did destroy the firm, such an outcome would have catastrophic effects:
The death of this 89 year-old firm would leave without their livelihoods many of the firm's 28,000 partners and employees — more than 99% of whom had no involvement in the events at issue — as well as its thousands of retirees.
The death of the firm would create enormous harm for the firm's 2,300 audit clients (representing 17% of all public companies) by placing their current SEC filings immediately in jeopardy.
The death of the firm would have a severe adverse impact on the accounting profession generally. It would eliminate the nation's fifth largest accounting firm and thus lead to further concentration in an already concentrated market. And it would kill any possibility that the sweeping reforms proposed by Chairman Volcker will be implemented — and with it, any chance that the accounting profession will undergo        much-needed changes.
The death of the firm would severely diminish its ability to provide some measure of compensation to thousands of claimants in other litigation against Arthur Andersen LLP. In fact, were it not for the Justice Department's criminal investigation, the firm undoubtedly would have reached a settlement with the SEC that would have dealt with these important issues in ways that would have greatly benefitted the public".
Seguiremo attenti gli sviluppi del procedimento in questione.
 (Maurizio Arena)