CAP Forum on Enron: What If Andersen Had Shredded in Toronto or Calgary? The Potential Criminal Liability of Canadian Public Accounting Firms*
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Both Canadians and Americans often assume that the legal system, like many other aspects of society, works the same in both countries. Just as these assumptions often fail to stand up to detailed scrutiny, so too may the assumption that Arthur Andersen LLP could have been charged with and convicted of obstruction of justice in Canada. In this paper, we examine the hypothetical question of what would have happened if a public accounting firm had shredded documents, fearing a provincial securities regulatory investigation in Toronto or Calgary. We examine the key differences between both the law and the institutional environment in Canada and the United States to determine whether such a prosecution could occur in Canada. We find that the letter of the law would probably have resulted in a successful prosecution. However, because of differences in the institutional environments, a criminal prosecution of a Canadian public accounting firm would probably never have occurred. The implications of this conclusion are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it