Would you hire the merely accused?

Remember in the US your are "Innocent unproved Guilty", but...

Public company - no, bad PR move.
Private company - maybe, depends on the interview, my investigation, etc.

I would not want to take on the risk. If they were found not guilty and this is the best person you can find for the position, I may consider it; but I would want to see the case file and the evidence of what transpired and why they were accused in the first place. To Anon's point. the policy obviously thought there was enough evidence to warrant a trial.

No. I have been in situations where I was asked to do something unethical (though not illegal) and I left, without a job prospect, rather than do it. If it was illegal, and I had done something and stayed, wouldn't that be admitting 1) I condoned it by staying, 2) I would rather have a job and do something unethical/illegal than be unemployed?

Even if I did stay and had nothing to do with it, am I not guilty by association?

But, interesting question.

Depending on the circumstances maybe, but only with a strong personal recommendation from someone familiar with the candidate who would vouch for her/him.

No. S/He may be innocent but they would also be more concerned with keeping their own butt out of the gray bar hotel. They would be spending a fair amount of time on their own defense and less time dedicated to the concerns of the business.

I faced this circumstance with a candidate a few years ago. My response was to conduct my own due diligence by investigating, asking questions of the candidate and other sources, assessing further and asking more questions. Then, given my risk tolerance, I made an informed decision based on what I had learned. Similar to many other circumstances we encounter in life, there will likely always be a degree of uncertainty in such matters. While this particular case has worked out very well, there is a degree of uncertainty associated with any hire. Had this situation worked out poorly, there would undoubtedly have been some "I told you so" responses. C'est la vie.

Accusations, suspicions and proximity do not equal guilt in spite of one respondent's assertion that "where there is smoke there must be fire." Our legal system infrequently sanctions, financially or professionally, aggressive prosecutors or enforcement officials who make trumped-up accusations about their targets or simply cast a ridiculously wide net in hopes of ensnaring the "guilty." Such officials, even though they are relatively few, often appear to have little incentive to admit defeat or error. For the wrongly accused, the only trial may be conducted in the news media. Attempting to restore one's good name can be a years-long, financially and emotionally daunting process that may never be completely successful.

Some of my best friends are attorneys and one in particular is representing someone who was convicted of bankruptcy fraud but is probably innocent. My friend was brought in for the appeal and probably would have won the original trial if he was involved at the time. The government railroads innocent people sometimes.

Having said that, I probably would not hire someone who has been accused but not convicted because the downside is far greater than the upside. That may sound uncaring but it's reality in a world where there are plenty of talented people looking for an opportunity.

One hypothetical question I might ask the original poster: What if the act the accused was said to have done, had been undertaken by or in the Federal Government? Would it have been prosecuted in that case, or swept under the rug, as just another one of the scores of scandals we see pouring out every day from this administration in Washington? Maybe he would have even gotten a Bonus?

We have a similar situation with a non profit volunteer organization. We have a person who was named to the board in financially related position who is being investigated for mishandling funds. As there is no resolution to the investigation, we have kept the person in their position with their prescribed duties. We are tightening all internal controls and adding more checks and verifications to our processes to prevent any problems. (This all comes with new administrative people so it is being justified as being part of this change).
Once any investigation is completed, any necessary actions regarding this person can be taken.