The testimony of Jon Corzine before a congressional panel coincided loosely with the tenth anniversary of the bankruptcy of Enron, which resulted in the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley.

In the eyes of some, these events are more than loosely connected. A CNBC columnist has taken Corzine to task, suggesting that he ought to face some sort of charges for violating Section 302, which requires the CEO and CFO to certify "the appropriateness of their financial statements and disclosures" and to certify that they fairly present the operational and financial condition of the company. By claiming that he had no idea what happened to the missing $1.2 billion, the former CEO is essentially admitting his sign-off on the financials was meaningless. The columnist wonders if that be some sort of violation.

"If Corzine can get away with pleading ignorance, then the entire rationale for Sarbox goes out the window," he argues. It's likely a bit more complex than that, but I certainly agree that MF Global holds some important lessons for executives in the Sarbox era. Clearly, the law will not prevent crimes from occurring. And it can't prevent irresponsible actions by executives in the throes of a crisis. But it was never meant to be a panacea, and end to all corporate crime. We can only hope that the law makes it less likely that major crimes will occur, as we discussed recently. In this case, the power of a celebrity CEO seemed to be only barely checked.

One point of Sarbanes-Oxley was to strengthen corporate boards. Corzine took pains to note in his prepared testimony that the board knew what he was doing in terms of the European sovereign debt. The board, which was packed with financial experts, understood the implications and imposed some limits. According to Corzine, there was lots of give and take, and the portfolio limits were violated on a few occasions, perhaps due to market moves.

But his point is that his risky bets were approved by the board. Does that lessen his culpability? It certainly raises issues about the board. Were they cowed? Media reports have held that Corzine threatened to quit if he didn't get his way. And in March, the chief risk officer stepped down, though it is unclear why. Some think Corzine sidestepped him. In any case, it's a shame that the board wasn't more active on the risk management front. You have to wonder what the directors are thinking right now. Do they feel at least a wisp of guilt?

Related article:
Enron, a decade later