Swing_n_Speed Posted June 16, 2012 Posted June 16, 2012 hmmm.. interesting read on raja. two startling points.. - the attorny that is going after these guys is an Indian. why is he not going after other people.. (jewish gang) - he stood his ground.. but Indians didnt.. Basically Gupta made the cardinal sin of fecking with Goldman Sachs. Plain and Simple. No one messes with Goldman Sachs.
Nova Posted June 17, 2012 Posted June 17, 2012 Jurors in tears as they convict Gupta NEW YORK: Jury foreman Richard Lepkowski didn't want to convict Rajat Gupta of insider trading. To him and other jurors, Gupta had lived a "storybook life" and "the American Dream", he said. In the end, though, the case was just too strong. When the 12 jurors reached the courtroom to deliver their verdict at 11.38am on Friday, two were in tears. "I struggled, I'll be honest with you," said Ronnie Sesso, 53, a youth advocate who works for New York City's Administration of Children's Services. "I was trying to determine the outcome of this person's life." Hours after the verdict, 51-year-old Lepkowski said in an interview at the Manhattan federal court, "I wanted to believe the allegations weren't true. Here was a man who came to this country and was a wonderful example of the American Dream. But at the end of the day, those allegations on which we found guilt — the evidence was overwhelming." Lepkowski, a resident of New York, is an executive at the non-profit Children's Tumour Foundation. Gupta, orphaned as a teenager in India, rose to become managing partner of McKinsey & Co and a director at Goldman Sachs and Procter and Gamble. On Friday, he became the most prominent executive to be convicted in a five-year US crackdown on insider trading at hedge funds. Jurors weighed the evidence for nine and a half hours over two days before convicting Gupta of one count of conspiracy and three counts of securities fraud, the maximum sentence for which is 20 years in prison. They acquitted him on two counts of securities fraud. The trial lasted four weeks. "It's hard," said Agnes Sanders, a retired librarian from Manhattan. "I'm sure we reached the right verdict, but it's hard." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-business/Jurors-in-tears-as-they-convict-Gupta/articleshow/14192244.cms
seedhi Posted June 17, 2012 Posted June 17, 2012 Rajat Gupta was awarded the distinguished alumni award by IIT Delhi and his achievements were part of the folklore there. What a shame for him to to this. But one has to admire the US legal system. Rajat Gupta has already been convicted, the trial lasted 4 weeks. Amazing. Compare that to India - it took 15 years to convict Sukh Ram, 11 years to convict Bangaru Laxman, who knows when the A Raja or Kalmadi trials will conclude. It took the High Court over 50 years to reach a judgment in the Babri dispute, and the appeal to the SC may take decades more. Serious judicial reform is needed in India.
akshayxyz Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Why judge his life as a whole. One can still idolize first part of his life, leaving the fraud part out. That has been exemplary by all standards. Besides, this whole hedge fund business is based on 'insider' information, sometimes it must be difficult to clear the traces. What you think happens at golf, horse-racing clubs. Also, at that level, it is quite possible that there are other people involved, or it could have been a trap - either he does not have evidence or sufficient support.
Trichromatic Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 I have now seriously started doubting weather corruption is in our DNA ? Or is it because our society has glorified it as a legitimate means. It is considered so very acceptable when it should have been a taboo. What is responsible for this mess our country and so many Indians are in? Is it our education system? I was never taught a lesson in ethics at school. Does it have something to do with our culture ? Law ? Law enforcement ? Poverty ? Illiteracy ? What afterall ? Those who don't earn extra money are considered are jerks or impractical and it has been so for long time.
Raghav_12 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Rajat Gupta gets 2-year jail term Gets Two years jail term. It is sad to see this guy going to jail, yet it is very good outcome under circumstances. http://www.financialexpress.com/news/rajat-gupta-gets-2year-jail-term/1021804/0
bajrang Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 i dont get it , why he would do such things ?? didnt he had enough money already ?? how much money does one need even after retiring as c.e.o. of top company?
yoda Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 He got away easy when compared to what Rajaratnam got. He should be happy.
Crookbond Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 Rajat Gupta is NOT punished for insider trading (as many here would like to believe) but rather for a "abuse of a trusted position". In addition, even though Goldman Sachs was a victim there is no evidence that it made any loss due to Rajat Gupta's actions. Also, the kind of chicanery Rajat Gupta indulged in is rampant in the corporate world. I would love such a justice system in India. I compare this to some ridiculous statements made about Gadkari like - legally he has done nothing wrong etc. The same holds true for Rajat Gupta's case as well. Here's the Judge's sentencing order - The heart of Mr. Gupta’s offenses here, it bears repeating, is his egregious breach of trust. Mr. Rajaratnam’s gain, though a product of that breach, is not even part of the legal theory under which the Government here proceeded, which would have held Gupta guilty even if Rajaratnam had not made a cent. While insider trading may work a huge unfairness on innocent investors, Congress has never treated it as a fraud on investors, the Securities Exchange Commission has explicitly opposed any such legislation, and the Supreme Court has rejected any attempt to extend coverage of the securities fraud laws on such a theory........In the eye of the law, Gupta’s crime was to breach his fiduciary duty of confidentiality to Goldman Sachs; or to put it another way, Goldman Sachs, not the marketplace, was the victim of Gupta’s crimes as charged. Yet the Guidelines assess his punishment almost exclusively on the basis of how much money his accomplice gained by trading on the information.At best, this is a very rough surrogate for the harm to Goldman Sachs. http://www.ft.com/cms/ad86526e-1e1d-11e2-8e1d-00144feabdc0.pdf
ganeshran Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 I would love such a justice system in India. I compare this to some ridiculous statements made about Gadkari like - legally he has done nothing wrong etc. The same holds true for Rajat Gupta's case as well. You are comparing two completely different things which makes no sense at all. Gadkari didnt do anything illegal in the allegations that Kejriwal raised. If that case went to court, Gadkari would be acquitted. That was pretty obvious and the reason Gadkari eagerly submitted to a probe. His other activities might be illegal/corrupt but the allegations made by the IAC didnt hold water. In Rajat Gupta's case, insider trading is an offence under US law. What the sentencing order means is that the Congress has not considered it a fraud against investors, but instead the company.
Crookbond Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 You are comparing two completely different things which makes no sense at all. Gadkari didnt do anything illegal in the allegations that Kejriwal raised. If that case went to court, Gadkari would be acquitted. That was pretty obvious and the reason Gadkari eagerly submitted to a probe. His other activities might be illegal/corrupt but the allegations made by the IAC didnt hold water. In Rajat Gupta's case, insider trading is an offence under US law. What the sentencing order means is that the Congress has not considered it a fraud against investors, but instead the company. If he was he would be punished for that law - why isn't he? He is not punished for insider trading but "egregious breach of trust". Read the order once again. My larger point was that the US does things to deter unethical practices even if it is not explicitly stated in the law. The rule book is a guideline not cast and stone. Time and again we need to use common sense.
ganeshran Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 If he was he would be punished for that law - why isn't he? He is not punished for insider trading but "egregious breach of trust". Read the order once again. My larger point was that the US does things to deter unethical practices even if it is not explicitly stated in the law. The rule book is a guideline not cast and stone. Time and again we need to use common sense. He is still guilty of divulging confidential information, the question is who is the victim here. The judge ruled that Goldman Sachs is the victim here, not the investors since the congress has never considered insider trading a fraud on the investors. Insider trading is explicitly illegal in the United states (and a lot of other countries as well). Rajat did break the law and the Judge in his judgement is justifying the sentence
Crookbond Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 He is still guilty of divulging confidential information, the question is who is the victim here. The judge ruled that Goldman Sachs is the victim here, not the investors since the congress has never considered insider trading a fraud on the investors. Insider trading is explicitly illegal in the United states (and a lot of other countries as well). Rajat did break the law and the Judge in his judgement is justifying the sentence Insider trading is unfair but not illegal on investors. The judge clearly spells it out - there is no law (and neither do the Supreme Court are in favor of bringing one) which states that it is illegal on investors. My comparison with Gadkari's case was at the abstraction level. Both these instances follow a particular suit - X indulges in a thing T. T is not illegal but unethical. X is charged with a 2-year jail sentence in one country. X roams scot free and occupies a position of political importance in another one. The level of deterrence in one country is amazing while in the other is appalling.
ganeshran Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 Insider trading is unfair but not illegal on investors. The judge clearly spells it out - there is no law (and neither do the Supreme Court are in favor of bringing one) which states that it is illegal on investors. My comparison with Gadkari's case was at the abstraction level. Both these instances follow a particular suit - X indulges in a thing T. T is not illegal but unethical. X is charged with a 2-year jail sentence in one country. X roams scot free and occupies a position of political importance in another one. The level of deterrence in one country is amazing while in the other is appalling. That the victims are not investors doesn't make insider trading legal. It is still illegal, only the victims are the company and not the ordinary investors. So Rajat Gupta broke the law (US Securities Act) and was punished for it. Gadkari's case is different, he didnt break the law ( Land Acquisition act). If there is a probe into the case and some quid pro quo is proven between the Ajit Pawar and Gadkari for the land acquisition approval, then a case could hold up in court. Without that, Kejriwal's allegations hold no water at all.
Crookbond Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 That the victims are not investors doesn't make insider trading legal. It is still illegal, only the victims are the company and not the ordinary investors. So Rajat Gupta broke the law (US Securities Act) and was punished for it. Gadkari's case is different, he didnt break the law ( Land Acquisition act). If there is a probe into the case and some quid pro quo is proven between the Ajit Pawar and Gadkari for the land acquisition approval, then a case could hold up in court. Without that, Kejriwal's allegations hold no water at all. You are actually confusing yourself! He is NOT punished for illegal trading. If he was the judge would have mentioned it in his sentence. Why hasn't he done that? Since, you just refuse to agree to this fact - let me quote Prof. TT Ram Mohan (IIM A) from his blog We need to be clear: the punishment is not for insider trading, although news headlines focus on the 'insider trading' case. Judge Rakoff's sentencing order makes it clear that, in the opinion of the learned judge, Gupta's offence was breach of trust. http://ttrammohan.blogspot.in/2012/10/rajat-gupta-sentence.html Please read the order and disprove it - I am surprised you are even making this meta discussion while the judge has clearly written that Rajat Gupta is convicted of "egregious breach of trust". It's right there in the PDF. It also mentions that his offenses are not part of legal theory. In this case, the court has made use of common sense to find him guilty as well as decide a sentence.
ganeshran Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 You are actually confusing yourself! He is NOT punished for illegal trading. If he was the judge would have mentioned it in his sentence. Why hasn't he done that? Since' date=' you just refuse to agree to this fact - let me quote Prof. TT Ram Mohan (IIM A) from his blog [/quote'] That he was not punished for Insider Trading does not change the fact that he did commit the offence. He did break the law when he divulged confidential information to Rajarathinam who gained from it. This is not merely an unethical practice but illegal as well. The reason the judge went for breach of trust is that if he had followed the sentencing guidelines for insider trading, Rajat Gupta would have got 8-10 years which was deemed excessive in light of his philanthropic activities. Read the order again. The judge mentions that the breach of trust is not a part of legal theory under which the Government here proceeded. That does not imply that breach of trust itself is not part of legal theory. It is still illegal when you break your legal contract with your employer not to divulge confidential information and facilitate insider trading because of this breach. Its not merely an unethical practice that the judge decide to sentence Gupta over. This link explains it very clearly http://thefirm.moneycontrol.com/story_page.php?autono=774185
Recommended Posts