rajat gupta to face criminal charges, surrenders to fbi

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:20 am

from the wall street journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204777904576653850379354850.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

from bloomberg business week:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-26/ex-goldman-director-gupta-surrenders-to-face-insider-charges.html

a profile of gupta from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajat_Gupta

the prosecutor is preet bharara, u.s. attorney in manhattan, as was the case in the conviction of gupta's friend, raj rajaratnam of galleon fund. rajaratnam got eleven years. gupta's attorney has denied all charges.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:15 pm

An Indian who loots in Amrika is being prosecuted by an Indian in an Amrikan court....

This is indeed an irony.

If only this had happened in India, Gupta ji will be ruling the courts through politicians. I am sure he is regretting ever coming to Amrika....

ROFL.........................screw all these Wall Street Looters.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:53 pm

here's a fascinating article by suketu mehta about raj rajaratnam, based on interviews with the latter during his prosecution and conviction:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/10/23/exclusive-raj-rajaratnam-reveals-why-he-didn-t-take-a-plea.html

mehta is the author of "maximum city."

excerpts:

...fbi agent to rajaratnam, at his initial arrest: “Take a good look at your son. You’re not going to see him for a long time.” He added, for good effect, “Your wife doesn’t seem so upset. Because she’s going to spend all your money.”

...The whole story speaks to the South Asian–American community: its pursuit of success and money at any cost; the differences between immigrants and the first generation; and the immigrants’ incomplete understanding of the rigor of the law in the U.S.

...“There are rules and there are laws, and they apply to everyone, no matter who you are or how much money you have,” says [Preet] Bharara [prosecutor, and u.s. attorney in manhattan]. This is what was not easily understood by the South Asians named in the conspiracy. There are laws and rules in India and Sri Lanka, too, but they can be tested, ignored by those who have money or friends.

...For four straight hours, Rajaratnam sits in his armchair and talks.

....”Rajaratnam does not speak well of [Anil] Kumar [a McKinsey executive and former classmate at Wharton]. He calls him a choot—Hindi for “c--t.” “I’m not Indian, but that word fits him,” he says.

...Part of Rajaratnam’s narrative is that of a man from a smaller South Asian country seduced and betrayed by people from the Big Brother country. Kumar had introduced him to Rajat Gupta. The two of them wanted to start an Indian School of Business in Hyderabad. “I gave them [the school] a million dollars. I later found out they never contributed any of their money, and are listed as the school’s founders. And I’m not even a fucking Indian.”

...The betrayal by the Indian associates hurts the most—he barely mentions the white government witnesses. He regrets doing a joint venture with the Indians.

...“There are two types of plea bargains. One is, you cooperate with the government. You finger 10 other people. The other is a plea bargain without cooperation.” The white defendants all pleaded without cooperating; they did not wear a wire. “The South Asians all did the plea bargain with fingering,” he notes sourly. “The Americans stood their ground. Every bloody Indian cooperated—Goel, Khan, Kumar.” He puts it down to “the insecurity of being an immigrant, lawyers bullying them into that position.”

...As late as two weeks before the sentencing, Rajaratnam was still being asked by the government to turn on Gupta. But he wouldn’t wear a wire, he says, so he could sleep at night.

...Their families knew my family. You don’t think this is going to haunt these guys? They wanted me to plea-bargain. They want to get Rajat. I am not going to do what people did to me. Rajat has four daughters.”

raj rajaratnam has let it all hang out: the insecurities of indians and sri lankans, of brownness, of imagined persecution, belief in astrology, and the ethical constitution of indians. read it. marvel at it. then mindlessly log in to chat and steal time from your employers.

by charvaka Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:26 am

Great news. I hope they get a conviction.

by chameli Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:51 am

jeremiah,

it is a poor excuse to call it "racial"

Prosecutor Bharara is going after 240 corporate executives who are white

Rajat Gupta is the big fish here but expect to get a hundred more non Indian indictments

by artood2 Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:02 pm

Apparently, the monetary gains are not clear for Rajat Gupta. Would be interesting how prosecutors can prove he gained from it.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:48 pm

chameli wrote:jeremiah,

it is a poor excuse to call it "racial"

Prosecutor Bharara is going after 240 corporate executives who are white

Rajat Gupta is the big fish here but expect to get a hundred more non Indian indictments

chameli, who called what racial, and what is the poor excuse? did i miss the word "racial" in the excerpts i posted?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:01 pm

artood2 wrote:Apparently, the monetary gains are not clear for Rajat Gupta. Would be interesting how prosecutors can prove he gained from it.

Sorry.. whether he Gained or not is the question. He certainly gained and certainly hoped to gain, and definitely would have used the network for any number of benefits. So forget the gain... did he BREAK the law by passing on info? that is the ONLY question.

This is like saying someone broke through a building/house but did not find much money - and hence he did not commit any crime.

Hang the bastards... hang them all.... Seriously, I will recommend capital punishment for the Wall Street Looters.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:46 pm

here's a video of a recent, indian news report on rajat gupta's rise and fall. it's all known info, but it's interesting to watch indian media's reactions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndPSqmsfiXI

by artood2 Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:58 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
artood2 wrote:Apparently, the monetary gains are not clear for Rajat Gupta. Would be interesting how prosecutors can prove he gained from it.

Sorry.. whether he Gained or not is the question. He certainly gained and certainly hoped to gain, and definitely would have used the network for any number of benefits. So forget the gain... did he BREAK the law by passing on info? that is the ONLY question.

This is like saying someone broke through a building/house but did not find much money - and hence he did not commit any crime.

Hang the bastards... hang them all.... Seriously, I will recommend capital punishment for the Wall Street Looters.

I am not very sure about the law but they will probably need to establish "relationship" between the parties. Insider trading is difficult to prove and Mark Cuban was absolved even though it seemed like he may have violated the law (mamma.com PIPE funding case). Given the fact that this has been a long investigation and plenty of wiretaps they probably have evidence to go after him. If not insider trading then some related stuff like conspiracy or securites fraud.

by chameli Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:00 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
chameli wrote:jeremiah,

it is a poor excuse to call it "racial"

Prosecutor Bharara is going after 240 corporate executives who are white

Rajat Gupta is the big fish here but expect to get a hundred more non Indian indictments
chameli, who called what racial, and what is the poor excuse? did i miss the word "racial" in the excerpts i posted?

jeremiah,

Rajaratnam is calling it racial ...

blaming all the Indians involved giving them bad words like "choo--- "

by Guest Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 pm

ok just read the suketu newsweek article that's hardly an interview.

to jeremiah:

1) i read it on an ipad like a book. you read it off a monitor? my sympathies.

2) you called rajarathnam brown. rajarathnam looks black and to quote you from chat "ugly." no harm in calling him brown but i am taking you up on the call that he is ugly. you think black people "perceived" brown are usually or tentatively ugly?

3) what imagined persecution are you talking about? all the persecutions rajarathnam addressed in that so-called interview were or are real.

4) rajarathnam comes across as a shamefaced criminal. rajat gupta, regardless of your high opinion of preeet bharara, in my opinion, is innocent.

5) all that sekutu mehta's south asian, immigrant, brown, wall street glass ceiling, persecuted story is blah blah blah. again, rajarathnam is a proud criminal, proud of his deeds and yes that behaviour is a category of criminal behaviour and not south asian behavior per se.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:17 pm

my comments, in italics, are interspersed in yours below

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:ok just read the suketu newsweek article that's hardly an interview.

to jeremiah:

1) i read it on an ipad like a book. you read it off a monitor? my sympathies.

irrelevant!

2) you called rajarathnam brown. rajarathnam looks black and to quote you from chat "ugly." no harm in calling him brown but i am taking you up on the call that he is ugly. you think black people "perceived" brown are usually or tentatively ugly?

he's ugly regardless of his skin colour. he's corpulent; he has no neck; his head seems to grow directly out of his chest and shoulders. he surely didn't come that way. that you assume that people are perceived as ugly because of the darkness of their skin is *your* problem.

3) what imagined persecution are you talking about? all the persecutions rajarathnam addressed in that so-called interview were or are real.

give me examples of real persecution that rajaratnam was subjected to.

4) rajarathnam comes across as a shamefaced criminal. rajat gupta, regardless of your high opinion of preeet bharara, in my opinion, is innocent.

and why do you think that gupta is innocent? because he grew up in kolkata?

5) all that sekutu mehta's south asian, immigrant, brown, wall street glass ceiling, persecuted story is blah blah blah.

your "blah blah blah" writing is hard to decipher. mehta didn't say that rajaratnam was persecuted. rajaratnam did.

again, rajarathnam is a proud criminal, proud of his deeds and yes that behaviour is a category of criminal behaviour and not south asian behavior per se.

(rajaratnam and gupta) performing criminal deeds while conveniently setting ethics aside, then consulting astrologers, (gupta) illegally serving as rajaratnam's eyes and ears in corporate boardrooms, then choosing deepavali day to surrender to the fbi, slandering people and engaging in uncivil behaviour, then wishing them a "happy deepavali and a prosperous year" again and again, all this in order to propitiate the gods and mitigate the karmic consequences = common, south asian behaviour.

by charvaka Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:50 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:rajat gupta, regardless of your high opinion of preeet bharara, in my opinion, is innocent.

The prosecution has wiretap evidence of Gupta divulging privileged information to Rajaratnam.

by Guest Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:43 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:he's ugly regardless of his skin colour. he's corpulent; he has no neck; his head seems to grow directly out of his chest and shoulders. he surely didn't come that way. that you assume that people are perceived as ugly because of the darkness of their skin is *your* problem.

i don't. my question was in the context of you mentioning, time and again, that dark was beautiful and coveted (you cited how your daughter played tennis in the sun to get darker). i was merely intrigued by your volte face. surely if it is so coveted, then minor anomalies like corpulence and no neck can be overlooked.

give me examples of real persecution that rajaratnam was subjected to.

read the article. he or his caquaintances [sic] were attacked by skinheads in britain and he took to carrying chilli powder with him for defense.

and why do you think that gupta is innocent? because he grew up in kolkata?

i am yet to see (in the media) any clinching evidence against him.

charvaka wrote: The prosecution has wiretap evidence of Gupta divulging privileged information to Rajaratnam.

as per the following article, the prosecution has only circumstantial evidence against him, not wiretap evidence.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/rajat-gupta-will-circumstantial-evidence-be-enough/articleshow/10526204.cms

by Kris Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:..
...The whole story speaks to the South Asian–American community: its pursuit of success and money at any cost; the differences between immigrants and the first generation; and the immigrants’ incomplete understanding of the rigor of the law in the U.S.

...“There are rules and there are laws, and they apply to everyone, no matter who you are or how much money you have,” says [Preet] Bharara [prosecutor, and u.s. attorney in manhattan]. This is what was not easily understood by the South Asians named in the conspiracy. There are laws and rules in India and Sri Lanka, too, but they can be tested, ignored by those who have money or friends.

.............................................................................................

...Part of Rajaratnam’s narrative is that of a man from a smaller South Asian country seduced and betrayed by people from the Big Brother country. Kumar had introduced him to Rajat Gupta. The two of them wanted to start an Indian School of Business in Hyderabad. “I gave them [the school] a million dollars. I later found out they never contributed any of their money, and are listed as the school’s founders. And I’m not even a fucking Indian.”

.................... “The Americans stood their ground. Every bloody Indian cooperated—Goel, Khan, Kumar.” He puts it down to “the insecurity of being an immigrant, lawyers bullying them into that position.”

...As late as two weeks before the sentencing, Rajaratnam was still being asked by the government to turn on Gupta. But he wouldn’t wear a wire, he says, so he could sleep at night.

...Their families knew my family. You don’t think this is going to haunt these guys? They wanted me to plea-bargain. They want to get Rajat. I am not going to do what people did to me. Rajat has four daughters.”

raj rajaratnam has let it all hang out: the insecurities of indians and sri lankans, of brownness, of imagined persecution, belief in astrology, and the ethical constitution of indians. read it. marvel at it. then mindlessly log in to chat and steal time from your employers.......................

>>>> Rajaratnam's outpourings need to be taken in the context of his situation i.e a criminal who has been caught. The theory that Rajaratnam ( or the Indian gang) are/were unaware of the rigor of American law since they are immigrants is absurd, For starters, American law it is not so airtight that criminals with money never get away. These guys definitely knew the game. It so happened that their luck ran out. lastly, rajaratnam may be sour at the Indians he dealt with, but criminals come in all colors

by Guest Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:21 pm

Kris wrote:>>>> Rajaratnam's outpourings need to be taken in the context of his situation i.e a criminal who has been caught. The theory that Rajaratnam ( or the Indian gang) are/were unaware of the rigor of American law since they are immigrants is absurd, For starters, American law it is not so airtight that criminals with money never get away. These guys definitely knew the game. It so happened that their luck ran out. lastly, rajaratnam may be sour at the Indians he dealt with, but criminals come in all colors

exactly! while rajat gupta is out on a bail of 10M USD, the top executives of india are still languishing in tihar. no bail for them.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:00 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

as per the following article, the prosecution has only circumstantial evidence against him, not wiretap evidence.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/rajat-gupta-will-circumstantial-evidence-be-enough/articleshow/10526204.cms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GalleonWiretap_RajatGupta-RajRajaratnam.ogg

by Guest Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:38 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

as per the following article, the prosecution has only circumstantial evidence against him, not wiretap evidence.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/rajat-gupta-will-circumstantial-evidence-be-enough/articleshow/10526204.cms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GalleonWiretap_RajatGupta-RajRajaratnam.ogg

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/the-challenges-of-prosecuting-rajat-gupta/

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:04 pm

[quote="Huzefa Kapasi"][quote="MaxEntropy_Man"]

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/the-challenges-of-prosecuting-rajat-gupta/

whether it is hard to prosecute or not is a different question. i was responding to your comment that there was no wiretap evidence. indeed there is such evidence.

by Guest Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:02 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:whether it is hard to prosecute or not is a different question. i was responding to your comment that there was no wiretap evidence. indeed there is such evidence.

agreed. if i were to keep arguing, i'd say that if it is hard to prosecute based on it then it is merely a wiretap, not wiretap evidence. it was evidence to prosecute rajarathnam but it is not clear how it can be used against rajat. in fact the prosecution is likely to rely on circumstantial evidence and not wiretap evidence.

i listened to it and honestly it sounds like two friends talking about corporate matters. it also seems that rajat had the impression that anil was getting money from rajarathnam ex gratia.

it is surprising why they have no clinching wiretap evidence of rajarathnam-gupta calls when they were tapping all conversations. it suggests that there weren't any such calls of tipping (for favour).

by charvaka Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:05 pm

The wiretap that Max posted clearly shows Gupta sharing Goldman board deliberations with Rajaratnam. That's a violation of his fiduciary responsibility as a board member to the shareholders of Goldman.

by Guest Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:09 am

charvaka wrote: That's a violation of his fiduciary responsibility as a board member to the shareholders of Goldman.

it is. but not all violations of fiiduciary responsibilities (to shareholders -- as a board member) are instances of criminal conduct. instead of arguing back and forth, let's see if the prosecution is able to prove that it amounted to insider trading.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:09 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
charvaka wrote: That's a violation of his fiduciary responsibility as a board member to the shareholders of Goldman.

it is. but not all violations of fiiduciary responsibilities (to shareholders -- as a board member) are instances of criminal conduct. instead of arguing back and forth, let's see if the prosecution is able to prove that it amounted to insider trading.

see this: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/rajat-guptas-fateful-day/

The government highlighted Mr. Gupta’s Sept. 23 schedule at the Rajaratnam trial during the testimony of Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman’s chief executive.
The calendar established for the jury that the Goldman board meeting had
taken place when it did. Then, using a phone log, prosecutors showed
that Mr. Gupta called Mr. Rajaratnam immediately afterward. Minutes
later, just before the stock market closed, Mr. Rajaratnam bought large
blocks of Goldman shares, according to trading records shown during the
trial.

The next morning, prosecutors say, with Goldman’s shares opening higher,
Mr. Rajaratnam sold his position in the bank, booking an illegal profit
of about $840,000.

by artood2 Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:15 am

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204505304577004181001595226.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

by Guest Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:17 am

i can't read the full article -- subscribers only.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:18 am

you get some 20 or so articles for free if you give them your email address. in any case, i have posted the most relevant quotes from the article. or did you mean the WSJ link that r2d2 posted?

by Guest Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:25 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
charvaka wrote: That's a violation of his fiduciary responsibility as a board member to the shareholders of Goldman.

it is. but not all violations of fiiduciary responsibilities (to shareholders -- as a board member) are instances of criminal conduct. instead of arguing back and forth, let's see if the prosecution is able to prove that it amounted to insider trading.

see this: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/rajat-guptas-fateful-day/

The government highlighted Mr. Gupta’s Sept. 23 schedule at the Rajaratnam trial during the testimony of Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman’s chief executive.
The calendar established for the jury that the Goldman board meeting had
taken place when it did. Then, using a phone log, prosecutors showed
that Mr. Gupta called Mr. Rajaratnam immediately afterward. Minutes
later, just before the stock market closed, Mr. Rajaratnam bought large
blocks of Goldman shares, according to trading records shown during the
trial.

The next morning, prosecutors say, with Goldman’s shares opening higher,
Mr. Rajaratnam sold his position in the bank, booking an illegal profit
of about $840,000.

i am aware of this. it does not amount to tipping for gain. who knows what rajat actually said to rajarathnam? rajat neither gained from the tip he passed (if any) nor was he aware that rajarathnam was acting on his info. in another case, rajat gave (or is alleged to have given) a tip on p&g. rajarathnam did not profit from it. clearly the tips were not to-profit-from based.

by Guest Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:26 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:you get some 20 or so articles for free if you give them your email address. in any case, i have posted the most relevant quotes from the article. or did you mean the WSJ link that r2d2 posted?

the latter.

by Guest Tue Nov 01, 2011 8:16 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Then, using a phone log, prosecutors showed
that Mr. Gupta called Mr. Rajaratnam immediately afterward.

i really wonder why they weren't able to tap this call and are now forced to rely on a phone log? probably they weren't gunning so much for rajat, at least in the initial period of the investigation.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Nov 01, 2011 10:01 am

what we do know for sure is rajaratnam traded huge blocks of goldman shares right after the recorded phone call with rajat gupta and monetarily benefited from the trade. this was certainly enough to put away rajaratnam. if that's a crime, why is the party at the other end not subject to the same penalties? i am not sure whether actual monetary benefiting from the insider tip (either by giving or taking) is required. isn't it sufficient to show that shareholders and other stakeholders were harmed? we also don't know what else the prosecution has. i don't know, i am just asking questions.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-10-30/news/30336740_1_rajat-gupta-raj-rajaratnam-galleon-group

Most of the time, it's easy to spot fatal flaws that lead to a final
unraveling, especially in retrospect. Think of Dominique Strauss-Kahn
or Bill Clinton and their womanising, or the countless politicos undone
by liquor. Greed too is usually apparent.

But Gupta — friend, father, philanthropist — seems in his public image to look as if he
should be above a career as a corporate spy.

The charges seem odd. The story prosecutors tell isn't just that he dropped an imprudent
word in someone's ear at a party or gave a relative a stock tip but that
he would call up immediately after the end of a series of board
meetings in 2008 and 2009. In fact, he filed the news of his corporate
board meetings with the speed and diligence of a Reuter's reporter out
to scoop Bloomberg, once just 16 seconds after the meeting broke up.

by Guest Tue Nov 01, 2011 10:27 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:what we do know for sure is rajaratnam traded huge blocks of goldman shares right after the recorded phone call with rajat gupta and monetarily benefited from the trade. this was certainly enough to put away rajaratnam.

huge blocks? the article you cite says he profited $840k. as per the prosecution rajarathnam profited a total $60M from various insider tradings. and i don't think this (goldman) was the deal that the prosecution used to nail him.

if that's a crime, why is the party at the other end not subject to the same penalties?

we really don't know what they spoke about. here are two close friends, one a hedge fund manager and the other a well respected executive. they have a right to chat about things corporate and in general. rajarathnam, obviously, would be eager for tips, any tip, he can get from his "friend." the friend is equally wary of not giving out tips but also not straining the friendship by appearing cold and frosty. rajat knew rajarathnam was an influential man and everyone needs friends like him. but anything rajat will say, rajarathnam will analyze deeply -- sometimes wrongly, sometimes correctly. maybe rajat said - gold man! gold is the commodity of the day. and rajarathnam thought it was a tip. maybe they did not talk about goldman at all. maybe rajarathnam got the tip from anil with whom rajat had shared it or maybe from someone else. you can't hang a man based on just suspicion -- especially a well respected man as rajat.

yes rajarathnam did help rajat with a loan of $10M once but i think that incident much predates these tips and also it was a compensation for a $10M loss rajat had taken by investing in a galleon fund.

i am not sure whether actual monetary benefiting from the insider tip (either by giving or taking) is required.

yes this quid pro quo is essential. the prosecution will try to say that he stood to gain by becoming the head of galleon international but all that is contentious.

we also don't know what else the prosecution has.

they haven't revealed it yet i think. i don't know how US law works. obviously they must be having something or else bharara would not have decided to prosecute him.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:29 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

we really don't know what they spoke about.

we know exactly what was said in that phone call. there is a recording of it available on the internet.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

maybe rajat said - gold man! gold is the commodity of the day. and
rajarathnam thought it was a tip. maybe they did not talk about goldman
at all.

this is getting ridiculous! you don't have to speculate. you can instead listen to the recording of the phone call.
i don't want to skewer the man before all the evidence is out and he is tried, but your comments are starting to border on the ludicrous.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:15 pm

and today there's news of money gone missing at jon corzine's firm. amazing how many goldman sachs names come up with any bad news on wall street.

by Guest Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:09 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:we know exactly what was said in that phone call. there is a recording of it available on the internet.

where is this recording on the internet? why are the prosecutors relying on phone log then? i admit i might have confused recordings in my posts earlier but my question still stands.

this is getting ridiculous!

why is it getting ridiculous! imagine you where in rajat's shoes for a moment!

i don't want to skewer the man before all the evidence is out and he is tried, but your comments are starting to border on the ludicrous.

ridiculous! you are upset and angry!

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:21 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

where is this recording on the internet?

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GalleonWiretap_RajatGupta-RajRajaratnam.ogg

by Guest Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:28 pm

duh! then why are they using a phone log?

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Nov 01, 2011 8:31 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:duh! then why are they using a phone log?

why can't they use a phone log and a wiretap together? the former to establish times of phone calls in relation to the stock trades that rajaratnam made.

by Guest Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:13 am

All relevant transcripts:

http://www.scribd.com/collections/2980389/The-Galleon-Trial-Transcripts-of-Wiretapped-Calls

by charvaka Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:31 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:what we do know for sure is rajaratnam traded huge blocks of goldman shares right after the recorded phone call with rajat gupta and monetarily benefited from the trade. this was certainly enough to put away rajaratnam. if that's a crime, why is the party at the other end not subject to the same penalties?

My understanding is this. To be guilty of criminal charges (which by definition only the state can bring), you need to have benefited personally from the insider trading. If the prosecution cannot convince the jury that Gupta benefited financially from all the insider info that he provided Rajaratnam (which the latter most certainly benefited from), they may not be able to convict him on that count. However, there may be other charges of securities fraud and conspiracy that they can still convict him on.

If Gupta is acquitted of all criminal charges, he will likely still be vulnerable to civil liability in this case. That is because the wiretap evidence shows that shareholders were clearly harmed. So a class action lawsuit by GS shareholders, or suits brought by large institutional investors in GS, can seek damages from Gupta for the harm he did to them. In that instance, I am not sure if the directors and officers liability insurance that GS doubtless carries will protect Gupta from financial exposure; given that he clearly violated his fiduciary responsibility, my guess (and hope) is that insurance doesn't cover his liability.

by charvaka Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:32 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:and today there's news of money gone missing at jon corzine's firm. amazing how many goldman sachs names come up with any bad news on wall street.

Indeed... did you read the news about how Goldman helped Greece cheat on its way into the eurozone?

by Guest Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:55 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:duh! then why are they using a phone log?

why can't they use a phone log and a wiretap together? the former to establish times of phone calls in relation to the stock trades that rajaratnam made.

right! this makes sense. i got confused in my posts above and at times i thought they did not have a wiretap. i agree with what charvaka says.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:15 am

so far bharara has been going after medium sized fish at best (and i am not referring to rajaratnam's quite immense hind quarters). the really big time crooks who got all the government bailouts are still out there. the news about goldman sachs involvement in so many of these mega failures is just getting worse and worse. wonder if and when someone like lloyd blankfein or corzine will on bharara's radar screen.

by pravalika nanda Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:37 am

ravana finally has a face.

by Sponsored content