Kenneth Lay’s naïve presumption of Innocence Enron has been yet another example of how a group of unethical individuals with a taste of success can manipulate a position into unscrupulous grandeur for the benefit of a few with no oversight from above and the auditors who should have thrown up a red flag much sooner on the pay roll. It was the perfect storm for Kenneth Lay and his cohorts to squeeze every illicit cent they could from the Enron cash cow. Claiming his innocence to up until his dying day Kenneth Lay set the stage for an historic violation of integrity in the company he built into what should have been a huge asset for the United States and investors (Rosoff, Pontell & Tillman, 2014). In 2000, Kenneth Lay stepped down from his perch as the CEO and handed over the reins to Jeffery
…show more content…
Unfortunately, as far back as prior to Jeffrey Skilling’s appointment to CEO the audit team at Andersen was clearly aware of the deception and the labyrinth of limited partnerships Enron leadership was covering up. They could have and certainly should have reported the violation, but motivated by their own greed giving up the $52 million-dollar client was not an option, as a result they did nothing but proliferate the façade (Rosoff, Pontell and Tillman, 2014). Enron had a lengthy list of contributors to its eventual downfall, many of which will likely never be prosecuted. The key leadership from treasury, finance and executive branch had the opportunity to do the right thing but chose to continue the cover-up until Enron finally imploded. Financial institutions that provided questionable transactions would share in the blame and of course the company whose auditing seal of approval would be inked on Enron along many firms to in the wake of the scandal, Arthur Andersen (Downes,
Unfortunately, as far back as prior to Jeffrey Skilling’s appointment to CEO the audit team at Andersen was clearly aware of the deception and the labyrinth of limited partnerships Enron leadership was covering up. They could have and certainly should have reported the violation, but motivated by their own greed giving up the $52 million-dollar client was not an option, as a result they did nothing but proliferate the façade (Rosoff, Pontell and Tillman, 2014). Enron had a lengthy list of contributors to its eventual downfall, many of which will likely never be prosecuted. The key leadership from treasury, finance and executive branch had the opportunity to do the right thing but chose to continue the cover-up until Enron finally imploded. Financial institutions that provided questionable transactions would share in the blame and of course the company whose auditing seal of approval would be inked on Enron along many firms to in the wake of the scandal, Arthur Andersen (Downes,