Ten years in prison

by Idéfix Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:23 pm

Rajat Gupta is due in court tomorrow for sentencing. He was convicted of insider trading and faces up to 10 years in prison. Thanks to his connections in high places, he has a lot of people lobbying for a light sentence, from Mukesh Ambani to Bill Gates and Kofi Annan. Here is a white collar criminal who was caught doing something that the jury found illegal and is clearly unethical. And just because he is well-placed, he is trying to escape prison. I hope he doesn't get away with this. There ought to be one set of rules for everyone, not a separate set of rules for the rich and well-connected criminals.

http://www.indiawest.com/news/7182-bill-gates-kofi-annan-write-in-support-of-rajat-gupta.html

by FluteHolder Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:39 pm

Just wondering about that too. How others can write to judge? I thought communicating to judge is an offence or may cause trouble to the person/s involved.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:10 pm

why should they not write in support of RG, and why shouldn't his prior philanthropy and good works count in the eyes of the judge? i think they are material to the sentence he is about to receive. when i look at the entirety of this case, his crime certainly doesn't put him in the ranks of the most egregious wall street thugs. he deserves a sentence, but i am sure he also deserves a mitigation for all his prior good work.

by Idéfix Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:21 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why should they not write in support of RG, and why shouldn't his prior philanthropy and good works count in the eyes of the judge? i think they are material to the sentence he is about to receive. when i look at the entirety of this case, his crime certainly doesn't put him in the ranks of the most egregious wall street thugs. he deserves a sentence, but i am sure he also deserves a mitigation for all his prior good work.

I don't believe his prior good work constitutes a get-out-of-jail card. He has been convicted of a crime, and he should be sentenced for it as any other man without his high-level connections would be. Much of the claimed good work is enabled by the very connections that Gupta is convicted of abusing. Once he is in jail, if he behaves well, he should be eligible for the same parole and / or commutation that other prisoners are eligible for.

The law doesn't say, "insider trading is illegal only if the person who does it is not a good person," or "only if the person who does it doesn't donate enough to charity." It says insider trading is illegal, period. So all these character references, IMO, are tangential. I am no lawyer, but I don't see any reason to let him off with community service.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:31 pm

i think it is quite common in american jurisprudence for the judge to consider things like prior criminal records or lack thereof, and whether the convict has been a good citizen, especially in cases of non-violent crimes. if that is the case, i'd want RG to get the benefit of the system. there were indications that the jury was very sympathetic towards him during the trial. some of them openly cried. it is very likely he will receive a commuted sentence.

by Idéfix Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:58 pm

I think it would send a rather poor message to would white collar criminals if Gupta is let off without serving any time. The message would be: it's not a problem if you get caught breaking the law, as long as you have powerful friends in high places to rescue you. And a corollary of the message: if you are going to break the law, make sure that you have powerful friends!

by Guest Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:13 am

what do these rich and famous people say about Julian Assange, I wonder.

Rajat Gupta *is* one of the biggest thugs.

by Kris Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:16 am

panini press wrote:Rajat Gupta is due in court tomorrow for sentencing. He was convicted of insider trading and faces up to 10 years in prison. Thanks to his connections in high places, he has a lot of people lobbying for a light sentence, from Mukesh Ambani to Bill Gates and Kofi Annan. Here is a white collar criminal who was caught doing something that the jury found illegal and is clearly unethical. And just because he is well-placed, he is trying to escape prison. I hope he doesn't get away with this. There ought to be one set of rules for everyone, not a separate set of rules for the rich and well-connected criminals.

http://www.indiawest.com/news/7182-bill-gates-kofi-annan-write-in-support-of-rajat-gupta.html

>>>I heard 6 years being bandied about when this thing surfaced. He is an idiot for having gotten himself into this mess. What a fall!

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:40 am

Kris wrote:
panini press wrote:Rajat Gupta is due in court tomorrow for sentencing. He was convicted of insider trading and faces up to 10 years in prison. Thanks to his connections in high places, he has a lot of people lobbying for a light sentence, from Mukesh Ambani to Bill Gates and Kofi Annan. Here is a white collar criminal who was caught doing something that the jury found illegal and is clearly unethical. And just because he is well-placed, he is trying to escape prison. I hope he doesn't get away with this. There ought to be one set of rules for everyone, not a separate set of rules for the rich and well-connected criminals.

http://www.indiawest.com/news/7182-bill-gates-kofi-annan-write-in-support-of-rajat-gupta.html

I don't care how much prison sentence he gets. But, the judge should punish him financially by confiscating all his properties - moveable and immovable - he accumulated over his lifespan.

If the Govt. can confiscate the wealth of drug pushers, why not financial criminals. I am sure this will reform the financial looters in a day.

A financial punishment for a financial crime.

>>>I heard 6 years being bandied about when this thing surfaced. He is an idiot for having gotten himself into this mess. What a fall!

I don't care how much prison sentence he gets. But, the judge should
punish him financially by confiscating all his properties - moveable
and immovable - he accumulated over his lifespan.

If the Govt.
can confiscate the wealth of drug pushers, why not financial criminals.
I am sure this will reform the financial looters in a day.

A financial punishment for a financial crime.

Or apply Sharia law.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:08 pm

He got off light, with just two years and a fine of $5 million.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/rajat-gupta-gets-2-years-in-prison/

Judge Jed S. Rakoff of Federal District Court in Manhattan handed down a more lenient prison sentence than the 8 to 10 years stipulated by nonbinding federal sentencing guidelines.

by Guest Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:52 pm

wow, he gets away free almost.

wall street rules!

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:56 pm

panini press and blabberwock: by what measure do you think two years is a light sentence? the two of you obviously have a reference point that i'm missing. let's review the crime. he passed on information from a board meeting at GS but didn't trade a single share. what do you think is a more fitting punishment?

by Petrichor Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:18 pm

Times states he didn't personally gain (I don't care for the narrow definition of him trading). But he was an investor in Raj's funds and the 75 mil profit that Raj booked must have been apportioned to Rajat? Unless the computations are obfuscated by other losses in that fund(s) since Raj's decline and Rajat can blithely claim "hey look, didn't make a penny!" This is the extent that came out - I dont doubt for a moment, other closets and skeletons since he was not the target of wiretap.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:37 pm

Here is why I think the sentence is light.

1. The sentencing guidelines for the crime he was convicted of call for 8 to 10 years.

2. The argument that he did not personally trade a share is not germane to whether what he did was legal. His actions were illegal whether he traded for personal gain, or actively provided insider information that he gained as a director to someone who traded those stocks. (Rajaratnam did trade based on the inside information received from Gupta). Introducing this distinction of personal benefit and a lower level of punishment without direct evidence of such benefit may embolden more would be criminals.

3. Gupta had fiduciary responsibility towards shareholders that he violated when he disclosed privileged insider information; the loss to the shareholders is not affected by whether Gupta personally profited.

4. It is my opinion that another, less well-connected person convicted of the same crime would have received a stiffer sentence.

5. Gupta was getting something other than direct personal financial gain from the illegal service he was providing Rajaratnam. Gupta's primary trade was in connections and influence; by doing Rajaratnam a favor, he was making an "investment" he could tap into later. For instance, when he needed financial support for the founding of the Indian School of Business in Hyderabad, he did call on Rajaratnam who obliged with a big fat check.

6. In an environment where egregious violations of the laws have resulted in the near-collapse of the financial system, anything short of the fullest extent of punishment for those few who are actually convicted sends the wrong message to potential white collar criminals of the future.

A more fitting punishment would have been the low end of the sentencing guideline of 8 years, with a nod to the good work he has done as the reason for being on the lower side.

by Guest Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:01 pm

oh, this is good news! 2 years is not bad. agreed he acted improperly but his prosecution was a bit of a witch hunt. he could have indulged in more serious crime in his position (as could have manmohan singh in the coal scam). he himself did not think he was guilty -- which explains why he made the tactical blunder of challenging the state (or stock exchange -- not sure).

by FluteHolder Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:35 pm

4. It is my opinion that another, less well-connected person convicted of the same crime would have received a stiffer sentence.

>>Agree. If it was Tom/Singh/Patel/Rao with no connections, they would have got stiffer punishments. So the message is, have friends in higher places if you want less punishment.

Same thing with Former NJ Governor's firm MF Global which used customer's funds in their investments and lost everything and more than a year now and he is not charged yet. And another one is PFG.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:12 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:panini press and blabberwock: by what measure do you think two years is a light sentence? the two of you obviously have a reference point that i'm missing. let's review the crime. he passed on information from a board meeting at GS but didn't trade a single share. what do you think is a more fitting punishment?

Yeah rite.... all those who helped a guy rape a woman should be released, bcz they just helped kidnap the woman, hold her down when the "real criminal" raped the woman. None of the others actually gained or committed the act.

The damage should be measured in terms of families affected by the criminal looting of the ealamite. If Gupta was decisively caught doing this ONE phone call, he escaped from all the other criminal calls he made over the decades.

The bastard should be fried in hot oil.

by Kris Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:35 am

3. Gupta had fiduciary responsibility towards shareholders that he violated when he disclosed privileged insider information; the loss to the shareholders is not affected by whether Gupta personally profited.

4. It is my opinion that another, less well-connected person convicted of the same crime would have received a stiffer sentence.

6. In an environment where egregious violations of the laws have resulted in the near-collapse of the financial system, anything short of the fullest extent of punishment for those few who are actually convicted sends the wrong message to potential white collar criminals of the future.

>>>>#3 stands out the most. He got off real easy in terms of the sentence. Of course, his rapid demotion to pariah status within his old circle probably was a much bigger punishment for him. I heard thru the grapevine that this took place within the McKinsey network as well. I guess your rolodex shrinks in no time in these situations.

by Guest Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:55 am

i agree with the views expressed in this article: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/10/25/breakingviews-gupta-sentencing-idINDEE89O01U20121025?type=economicNews

------------------------------------------------------------
Gupta is, unlike most criminals, an orphaned immigrant with enough talent to have achieved spectacular corporate success. The U.S. government could have used that talent for free - not to benefit Rwandans, but for anything from educating American business students to solving the budget crisis.

Public service would, of course, have come with a prison term. Because he was such a trusted insider, Gupta's crimes were egregious betrayals. So he deserved stiff punishment, despite what Rakoff called his "big heart and helping hand." Ideally, though, it would have included doing good as well as doing time.
---------------------------------------------------------

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:01 am

panini press wrote:1. The sentencing guidelines for the crime he was convicted of call for 8 to 10 years.

I believe he was wrongly convicted. This was not some "egregious" violation meriting criminal prosecution. The damages on account of his actions, if any, are unproven. The SEC did the right thing by limiting its actions to a civil complaint. OTOH, Preet Bharara, the US Attorney, was just furthering his personal ambitions by going all out for the kill. IMO, the system (incl the judge) intuitively sensed the injustice perpetrated by an overzealous prosecutor and refrained from treating an otherwise upstanding member of the society on par with, say, a rapist or a murderer.

panini press wrote:2. The argument that he did not personally trade a share is not germane to whether what he did was legal. His actions were illegal whether he traded for personal gain, or actively provided insider information that he gained as a director to someone who traded those stocks. (Rajaratnam did trade based on the inside information received from Gupta). Introducing this distinction of personal benefit and a lower level of punishment without direct evidence of such benefit may embolden more would be criminals.

The issue is germane. It is the trading of shares on the basis of privileged information that is criminal. So Rajaratnam was in violation of the law, placing trades based on the information he got from RG (and other sources). RG merely violated his fiduciary duty which is not a criminal matter but a civil matter. It is silly to suggest that a lighter sentence would embolden other corporate insiders to similarly violate their fiduciary duties. Forget the prison sentence, just the scandal is sufficient to reduce their entire career to ashes. The humiliation that Rajat Gupta went through these last couple of years was itself sufficient punishment and a deterrent to future violators. A prison term is overdoing it.

panini press wrote:3. Gupta had fiduciary responsibility towards shareholders that he violated when he disclosed privileged insider information; the loss to the shareholders is not affected by whether Gupta personally profited.

Yes. The SEC is well placed to handle such violations. And they didn't see the need to invoke criminal charges (as they did with Rajaratnam). And if someone felt particularly damaged by Gupta's actions, they could always file a private civil suit. There was absolutely no need for the Manhattan US Attorney to go overboard with criminal charges. In any case, look who's the designated victim of Gupta's actions, on whose behalf Mr Bharara led his most noble crusade! "Goldman Sachs, not the marketplace, was the victim of Gupta's crimes as charged", said Judge Rakoff. Bwahahaha...

panini press wrote:4. It is my opinion that another, less well-connected person convicted of the same crime would have received a stiffer sentence.

That is true. A less well-connected person might have been a easier victim to the lynch-mob mentality that prevails in the US today. Without the full glare of world publicity, Judge Rakoff would have felt lesser need to resist the populist call for Gupta's scalp.

panini press wrote:5. Gupta was getting something other than direct personal financial gain from the illegal service he was providing Rajaratnam. Gupta's primary trade was in connections and influence; by doing Rajaratnam a favor, he was making an "investment" he could tap into later. For instance, when he needed financial support for the founding of the Indian School of Business in Hyderabad, he did call on Rajaratnam who obliged with a big fat check.

Sure, Rajaratnam funded the ISB. So how does that work to Rajat Gupta's personal benefit? And how does this make Gupta's fiduciary failing a criminal act?

panini press wrote:6. In an environment where egregious violations of the laws have resulted in the near-collapse of the financial system, anything short of the fullest extent of punishment for those few who are actually convicted sends the wrong message to potential white collar criminals of the future.

Haha..this is IT. The true reason why the crowds are baying for his blood. We lost our 401Ks, our homes are worth less than the mortgages, we lost our jobs...and those bankers who did all this to are continuing to make merry. We can't touch those fat cats, so let us find a convenient, most vulnerable scapegoat and string him up the nearest lamp-post. Why? Because we want to set an EXAMPLE. It is Rajat Gupta's calls that brought down the global economy on its knees. The SEC was only half-hearted in its actions. On the other hand, Preet Bharara is the true hero of the people (and has a bright future after this). If only the courts had been a little more co-operative, this would have been such a fantastic deterrent, we could all have sat back and relaxed. Never again would the world see a replay of the great financial crisis of 2009. Dang judge. Dang SEC.

by Guest Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:26 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:The SEC did the right thing by limiting its actions to a civil complaint.

yes, now i remember. from wikpedia (on rajat gupta):

On March 1, 2011, the SEC filed an administrative civil complaint against Gupta for insider trading with billionaire and Galleon Group hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam. Coverage of the event noted that Anil Kumar — who, like Gupta, had graduated from IIT, was a highly regarded senior partner at McKinsey, and had also co-founded the Indian School of Business — had already pleaded guilty to charges in the same case.[58] Gupta, Kumar, and Rajaratnam were all close friends and business partners. Gupta countersued and both sides eventually dropped.

what is bolded above is what i read was a tactical blunder by him. perhaps it was bad legal advice. rajat gupta should have simply settled it with SEC (an option). instead, he went on a head-on collision with them and immediately stepped into preet bharara's radar who was looking for a witch to hunt!

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:34 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
On March 1, 2011, the SEC filed an administrative civil complaint against Gupta for insider trading with billionaire and Galleon Group hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam. Coverage of the event noted that Anil Kumar — who, like Gupta, had graduated from IIT, was a highly regarded senior partner at McKinsey, and had also co-founded the Indian School of Business — had already pleaded guilty to charges in the same case.[58] Gupta, Kumar, and Rajaratnam were all close friends and business partners. Gupta countersued and both sides eventually dropped.
what is bolded above is what i read was a tactical blunder by him. perhaps it was bad legal advice. rajat gupta should have simply settled it with SEC (an option). instead, he went on a head-on collision with them and immediately stepped into preet bharara's radar who was looking for a witch to hunt!

I'm not sure settling would have helped. That is usually viewed as admission of wrongdoing and might have further strengthened the prosecution's case here.

by Guest Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:11 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
On March 1, 2011, the SEC filed an administrative civil complaint against Gupta for insider trading with billionaire and Galleon Group hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam. Coverage of the event noted that Anil Kumar — who, like Gupta, had graduated from IIT, was a highly regarded senior partner at McKinsey, and had also co-founded the Indian School of Business — had already pleaded guilty to charges in the same case.[58] Gupta, Kumar, and Rajaratnam were all close friends and business partners. Gupta countersued and both sides eventually dropped.
what is bolded above is what i read was a tactical blunder by him. perhaps it was bad legal advice. rajat gupta should have simply settled it with SEC (an option). instead, he went on a head-on collision with them and immediately stepped into preet bharara's radar who was looking for a witch to hunt!

I'm not sure settling would have helped. That is usually viewed as admission of wrongdoing and might have further strengthened the prosecution's case here.

well, the guy who is having the last laugh is the one who settled and cooperated with the state: anil kumar. after rajaratnam, he was the biggest crook by degree.

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:21 am

By turning approver, he ducked the prison term. That is probly the only good news. In addition to never finding any employment after this, he's probly a social pariah for what he did to his friend and mentor.

The only guy having the last laugh is Preet Bharara.

by Guest Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:22 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:The only guy having the last laugh is Preet Bharara.

ha ha, true.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:48 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:The only guy having the last laugh is Preet Bharara.
ha ha, true.

by Guest Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:00 am

good morning LOVU ji. Rolling Eyes

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:04 am

i don't have much to add to what MD has said. my thoughts on the conviction and punishment are also along similar lines. the words "lynch mob" also occurred to me.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:37 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Gupta countersued and both sides eventually dropped.

hahaha, such northindian english, na. dropped what? the ball? their pants?

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:43 am

that usage is not unlike "yes we can" -- obama's campaign slogan from 2008. it always used to elicit the response in my mind, yes we can what?

by Propagandhi711 Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:29 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
panini press wrote:1. The sentencing guidelines for the crime he was convicted of call for 8 to 10 years.
I believe he was wrongly convicted. This was not some "egregious" violation meriting criminal prosecution. The damages on account of his actions, if any, are unproven. The SEC did the right thing by limiting its actions to a civil complaint. OTOH, Preet Bharara, the US Attorney, was just furthering his personal ambitions by going all out for the kill. IMO, the system (incl the judge) intuitively sensed the injustice perpetrated by an overzealous prosecutor and refrained from treating an otherwise upstanding member of the society on par with, say, a rapist or a murderer.

SEC.

so you are not willing to believe there was proof of wrongdoing by rajat gupta in the face of evidence to contrary but like to cast aspersions on preet bharara's ambitions without any proof? put another way, a man does his job well and he's blamed for being a political climber, but someone that broke the law at the very least among other ethical violations is excused and should not have been convicted? upstanding member of society, you say? ppl generally dont put someone that calls their friend two mins after they're privy to some boardroom secret so the friend can trade and profit from it on that particular pedestal. also are you saying white collar criminals dont deserve to be incarcerated and only rapists, murderers do?

PS: what's with the cavalier attitude towards crony capitalism, corruption etc? first the derision at anti corruption attempts and now this? something's not right in denmark....

by Idéfix Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:53 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
panini press wrote:1. The sentencing guidelines for the crime he was convicted of call for 8 to 10 years.
I believe he was wrongly convicted.

The court doesn't believe that.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
panini press wrote:2. The argument that he did not personally trade a share is not germane to whether what he did was legal. His actions were illegal whether he traded for personal gain, or actively provided insider information that he gained as a director to someone who traded those stocks. (Rajaratnam did trade based on the inside information received from Gupta). Introducing this distinction of personal benefit and a lower level of punishment without direct evidence of such benefit may embolden more would be criminals.
The issue is germane. It is the trading of shares on the basis of privileged information that is criminal. So Rajaratnam was in violation of the law, placing trades based on the information he got from RG (and other sources).

Not true. The law applies to the disclosure of insider information. Not that ignorance of the law is a valid defense in the first place, but as a management consultant he ought to know this provision of the law very well.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Sure, Rajaratnam funded the ISB. So how does that work to Rajat Gupta's personal benefit? And how does this make Gupta's fiduciary failing a criminal act?

Gupta's trade was to arrange things using his influence. Connections and influence are the currency of his work.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
panini press wrote:6. In an environment where egregious violations of the laws have resulted in the near-collapse of the financial system, anything short of the fullest extent of punishment for those few who are actually convicted sends the wrong message to potential white collar criminals of the future.
Haha..this is IT. The true reason why the crowds are baying for his blood. We lost our 401Ks, our homes are worth less than the mortgages, we lost our jobs...and those bankers who did all this to are continuing to make merry. We can't touch those fat cats, so let us find a convenient, most vulnerable scapegoat and string him up the nearest lamp-post. Why? Because we want to set an EXAMPLE. It is Rajat Gupta's calls that brought down the global economy on its knees. The SEC was only half-hearted in its actions. On the other hand, Preet Bharara is the true hero of the people (and has a bright future after this). If only the courts had been a little more co-operative, this would have been such a fantastic deterrent, we could all have sat back and relaxed. Never again would the world see a replay of the great financial crisis of 2009. Dang judge. Dang SEC.

It is not Gupta's fault that the system collapsed. But it is Gupta's fault that he broke the law and was caught doing so; therefore he ought to have been punished to the fullest extent of the law.

by KumarGg Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:55 am

panini press wrote: ......And just because he is well-placed, he is trying to escape prison. I hope he doesn't get away with this. There ought to be one set of rules for everyone, not a separate set of rules for the rich and well-connected criminals.

That would be a perfect example of judging using emotions, and not reason, like we discussed yesterday. :-)

by Idéfix Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:23 pm

KumarGg wrote:
panini press wrote: ......And just because he is well-placed, he is trying to escape prison. I hope he doesn't get away with this. There ought to be one set of rules for everyone, not a separate set of rules for the rich and well-connected criminals.

That would be a perfect example of judging using emotions, and not reason, like we discussed yesterday. :-)

Yes, and no less valid for being based on emotion.

by KumarGg Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:03 pm

This means that "heuristics", or emotion based judgement is used not just for smaller things like resolving small workplace squabbles; even bigger and more serious things you mentioned yesterday as exceptions (such as sexual harassment issues), and now things like setting free a white collar criminal are based on emotions. What an unfair world we live in.

by Idéfix Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:05 pm

KumarGg wrote:This means that "heuristics", or emotion based judgement is used not just for smaller things like resolving small workplace squabbles; even bigger and more serious things you mentioned yesterday as exceptions (such as sexual harassment issues), and now things like setting free a white collar criminal are based on emotions. What an unfair world we live in.

Yes, they are used for big things as well. Companies tend to at least try to follow the process on the big things, just like courts do too. But at the end of the day, twelve individuals need to decide whether the person is guilty or not, and I am sure their own personal likes and dislikes do become part of their decision-making process.

by Guest Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:21 pm

panini press wrote:
KumarGg wrote:This means that "heuristics", or emotion based judgement is used not just for smaller things like resolving small workplace squabbles; even bigger and more serious things you mentioned yesterday as exceptions (such as sexual harassment issues), and now things like setting free a white collar criminal are based on emotions. What an unfair world we live in.
Yes, they are used for big things as well. Companies tend to at least try to follow the process on the big things, just like courts do too. But at the end of the day, twelve individuals need to decide whether the person is guilty or not, and I am sure their own personal likes and dislikes do become part of their decision-making process.

true. i read some jury members cried (sympathetic to rajat gupta) while delivering their verdict. at the end of the day we are an emotional species. my emotion tells me that what rajat gupta did is par for the course. but bharara was ambitious. you appeared in his radar for you were not only an unobliging criminal but also a classic immigrant-turned-criminal case worthy of being hanged and so you were. preet bharara zindaband. we have a saying in hindi -- you are not a criminal till you get caught. hanging one or two criminals is not a fix to the problem. it is merely bloodlust or mob-vendetta. these americans are no different from the taliban. had they been an evolved species, they would have sentenced him to work for free for the exchequer. tweeting and liking his sentence is not the solution. you cannot uproot corruption. either build around it or improve legislation.

by Idéfix Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:54 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:my emotion tells me that what rajat gupta did is par for the course. ... hanging one or two criminals is not a fix to the problem. it is merely bloodlust or mob-vendetta.

Hanging Gupta would be too much, I agree. But he did actually commit a crime per the law. It is not "par for the course" at all. One of the things he should have known is that it is a crime to disclose insider information to someone who can use it to trade using that knowledge. He knew he was committing a crime, and he committed a crime. So he deserves to be punished.

by Guest Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:28 pm

What is found out is always just the tip of the iceberg. The least they can do is give the prescribed sentence for what has been proven instead of using the "good human being" certificate given by 400+ powerful people.

It is very easy to be philanthropic after one makes 500 million dollars (maybe several other undetected phone calls had a role to play in this).

This is like a child who has killed his parents being pardoned because he is a poor little orphan now.

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:41 am

panini press wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
panini press wrote:2. The argument that he did not personally trade a share is not germane to whether what he did was legal. His actions were illegal whether he traded for personal gain, or actively provided insider information that he gained as a director to someone who traded those stocks. (Rajaratnam did trade based on the inside information received from Gupta). Introducing this distinction of personal benefit and a lower level of punishment without direct evidence of such benefit may embolden more would be criminals.
The issue is germane. It is the trading of shares on the basis of privileged information that is criminal. So Rajaratnam was in violation of the law, placing trades based on the information he got from RG (and other sources).
Not true. The law applies to the disclosure of insider information. Not that ignorance of the law is a valid defense in the first place, but as a management consultant he ought to know this provision of the law very well.

This is what the Supreme Court has to say on the topic in Dirks v SEC: "Whether disclosure is a breach of duty therefore depends in large part on the purpose of the disclosure. This standard was identified by the SEC itself in Cady, Roberts: a purpose of the securities laws was to eliminate "use of inside information for personal advantage." 40 S.E.C. at 912, n. 15. See n 10, supra. Thus, the test is whether the insider personally will benefit, directly or indirectly, from his disclosure. Absent some personal gain, there has been no breach of duty to stockholders."

panini press wrote:1. The sentencing guidelines for the crime he was convicted of call for 8 to 10 years.

panini press wrote:It is not Gupta's fault that the system collapsed. But it is Gupta's fault that he broke the law and was caught doing so; therefore he ought to have been punished to the fullest extent of the law.

He violated his duties for sure, but his public humiliation was sufficient punishment. As for those sentencing guidelines, your certitude in their sanctity may go down a couple of notches if you read Judge Rakoff's judgement.

He begins his critique of the sentencing guidlines saying: "Imposing a sentence on a fellow human being is a formidable responsibility. It requires a court to consider, with great care and sensitivity, a large complex of facts and factors. The notion that this complicated analysis, and moral responsibility, can be reduced to the mechanical adding-up of a small set of numbers artificially assigned to a few arbitrarily-selected variables wars with common sense. Whereas apples and oranges may have but a few salient qualities, human beings in their interactions with society are too complicated to be treated like commodities, and the attempt to do so can only lead to bizarre results. Nowhere is this more obvious than in this very case, where the Sentencing Guidelines assign just 2 points to Mr. Gupta for his abuse of a position of trust -- the very heart of his offense -- yet assign him no fewer than 18 points for the resultant but unpredictable monetary gains made by others, from which Mr. Gupta did not in any direct sense receive one penny."

by Petrichor Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:46 am

[quote="Merlot Daruwala"][quote="panini press"]

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

This is what the Supreme Court has to say on the topic in Dirks v SEC: "Whether disclosure is a breach of duty therefore depends in large part on the purpose of the disclosure. This standard was identified by the SEC itself in Cady, Roberts: a purpose of the securities laws was to eliminate "use of inside information for personal advantage." 40 S.E.C. at 912, n. 15. See n 10, supra. Thus, the test is whether the insider personally will benefit, directly or indirectly, from his disclosure. Absent some personal gain, there has been no breach of duty to stockholders."

Incorrect. And a bad (disingenuous) reading of Dirks. Breach of duty is with respect to Goldman - Rajat violated his duty to Goldman and that is the central theme of his crime. As judge notes, sentencing guidelines were set aside and his own rubrics yielded the 2 year term.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/111086708/United-States-of-America-V-Rajat-K-Gupta

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:45 pm

Let me repeat what I heard someone say about abuse of power, authority, and responsibility in today's society (in the context of my workplace environment):

"People act in any way they can as long as they are convinced they can get away with their action."

So called intelligent people who go to great Universities are expected to have higher morals, skills, performance, and hence, rewards.

When they slip, the punishment also should be bigger than what other commoners would get for similar crimes. Even in the statement he read in the court, he did not acknowledge his crime or apologize. Even here only his crookedness and intent to safeguard his wealth (from lawsuits) were uppermost in his mind.

I strongly believe Gupta should have been given a 10-yr sentence AND confiscation of all his wealth (will never happen).

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:48 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Let me repeat what I heard someone say about abuse of power, authority, and responsibility in today's society (in the context of my workplace environment):

"People act in any way they can as long as they are convinced they can get away with their action."

So called intelligent people who go to great Universities are expected to have higher morals, skills, performance, and hence, rewards.

When they slip, the punishment also should be bigger than what other commoners would get for similar crimes. Even in the statement he read in the court, he did not acknowledge his crime or apologize. Even here only his crookedness and intent to safeguard his wealth (from lawsuits) were uppermost in his mind.

I strongly believe Gupta should have been given a 10-yr sentence AND confiscation of all his wealth (will never happen).

the punishment has to fit the crime. it cannot be based on the rabble's sense of jealousy. i think the punishment does fit the crime here.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:13 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
I strongly believe Gupta should have been given a 10-yr sentence AND confiscation of all his wealth (will never happen).

the punishment has to fit the crime. it cannot be based on the rabble's sense of jealousy. i think the punishment does fit the crime here.

Yes. The crime here is not passing a simple piece of information, but the intent, awareness of the consequences, and collaborating with the ones who acted out the crime.

In real life, the punishment is usually associated with the crime + circumstances, which includes the status, position, potential consequences.

by Petrichor Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:17 pm

The judge talks about specific and general deterrence.

Specifically he believes Rajat will never indulge in these activities again. And generally speaking other potential criminals will think twice based on the possibility of a 2 year term. In this the judge even assumes that white collar criminals are slightly thin skinned and 2 years is sufficient to scare them.

My issue with this, is, that it lags behind in a quaint and naive way the current thinking in the rarefied circles of power and wealth. A 2 year term is at worst a punch line joke that has to be endured with an equal repartee about the opponent himself, in social cocktails circuit. I think shame honor etc. have long disappeared among this class - despite appearances, Rajat is secretly relieved at the light cost and his life has been fully Americanized down to the "second innings of fallen heroes rising again" meme.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:46 pm

Michael Milken, Martha Stewart to name a couple.

Agree..shame, honor, and honesty are not part of the rich and powerful anymore. Corruption and punishment are part of professional challenges and speed bumps to "progress"

by Guest Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:14 pm

atcg wrote:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111086708/United-States-of-America-V-Rajat-K-Gupta

thank you. i just read radkoff's eloquent judgment in its entirety. what a lucky person rajat gupta was to have rakoff for judge. to all your and PP's brouhaha about how he has been justly punished, rakoff has actually let him off the hook and given him a token punishment to satiate the bloodthirsty atavistic instinct of the american public. and he states that very clearly in his judgement. to you and PP: what kind of a nonsense system do you have in the USA that gives merely a 2 year sentence to a guy who has "backstabbed" goldman during a time when america was going through a severe financial crisis in 2008? is this a sort of example you want to set to others? cheat your principal with "insider trading" when USA is going through a bust/recession and get away scot free with a 2 year sentence in prison that will actually amount to 15/16 months in jail? does US criminal law need an upheaval? please consult your "self" (atcg and PP) and answer.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:49 pm

If an "informer" is caught for passing secret information - even for industrial espionage - to a Chinese company, to a serial killer, to a bank robber, to a burglar, he will be given a stringent, more severe punishment as an accomplice.

Here Gupta, just added another exciting chapter for his future "biographical" book and rake in $50 mil at least. In other words, the judge and the judiciary has helped this criminal to become famous and accumulate even more ill-gotten wealth.

P.S. and we are supposed to believe that Gupta passed on the critical information INSTANTLY to Raj Ratnam as Charity with absolutely no return/reward in mind. How noble of him.

by Petrichor Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:03 pm

HK...two points:

1. PP and I disagree with the judge - it should have been more than 2 years.

2. You sound very sophisticated, civilized when you scoff at the atavistic bloodthirsty American public and then strangely regress in the next line asking what kind of nonsense system gives only 2 years.

by Guest Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:25 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Let me repeat what I heard someone say about abuse of power, authority, and responsibility in today's society (in the context of my workplace environment):

"People act in any way they can as long as they are convinced they can get away with their action."

So called intelligent people who go to great Universities are expected to have higher morals, skills, performance, and hence, rewards.

When they slip, the punishment also should be bigger than what other commoners would get for similar crimes. Even in the statement he read in the court, he did not acknowledge his crime or apologize. Even here only his crookedness and intent to safeguard his wealth (from lawsuits) were uppermost in his mind.

I strongly believe Gupta should have been given a 10-yr sentence AND confiscation of all his wealth (will never happen).

the punishment has to fit the crime. it cannot be based on the rabble's sense of jealousy. i think the punishment does fit the crime here.

Eh?

by Sponsored content