## Facts

- Arthur Andersen LLP served as Enron Corporation’s outside auditor during Enron’s collapse.
- As Enron’s financial difficulties became public, Andersen anticipated governmental scrutiny and reminded employees of its document retention policy.
- After learning that the SEC was likely to investigate, and after the SEC opened an investigation, Andersen personnel engaged in substantial shredding of paper records and deletion of electronic files related to Enron.
- When subpoenas were served, Andersen employees were instructed to stop destroying documents.
- The United States charged Andersen under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A) and (B) for “knowingly . . . corruptly persuading” others to withhold, alter, or destroy documents for use in an “official proceeding.”

## Issues

1. Whether “knowingly . . . corruptly persuades” in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b) requires proof that the defendant was conscious of wrongdoing.
2. Whether § 1512(b) requires a nexus between the alleged corrupt persuasion and a particular official proceeding that was at least foreseeable.
3. Whether the district court’s jury instructions improperly reduced the government’s burden on mens rea and nexus, permitting conviction for otherwise lawful conduct.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed Andersen’s conviction and remanded.
- The Court held the jury instructions failed to properly state the elements of a “corrupt persuasion” offense under § 1512(b).
- The instructions permitted conviction without requiring the jury to find that Andersen acted with consciousness of wrongdoing.
- The Court also criticized the instructions for failing to ensure a sufficient connection between the alleged persuasion and a particular official proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b), “knowingly” modifies “corruptly persuades,” and “corruptly” imports wrongdoing; only a person conscious of wrongdoing can “knowingly . . . corruptly persuade.”
- Because persuasion and compliance with a document retention policy can be lawful, § 1512(b) must be construed narrowly to avoid criminalizing ordinary legal and business conduct.
- Obstruction liability under § 1512(b) requires a nexus between the defendant’s conduct and a particular official proceeding; the defendant must have awareness that the conduct is likely to affect such a proceeding.
- Jury instructions that allow conviction without requiring consciousness of wrongdoing and a sufficient nexus misstate § 1512(b)’s elements and cannot support a conviction.

## Conclusion

The Court set aside Andersen’s obstruction conviction because the jury was allowed to convict without finding that Andersen knowingly engaged in wrongful persuasion and without a sufficiently specific connection to an official proceeding, thereby expanding § 1512(b) beyond its proper limits.


Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005)