IchorFigure Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEDGE_FUND_INSIDER_TRADING?SITE=WYCHE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT "Rajaratnam's punishment fell far short of the 24 1/2 years prosecutors had requested." "sentenced Thursday to 11 years behind bars - the stiffest punishment ever handed out for the crime." "Rajaratnam's lawyers had argued for 6 1/2 to nine years. Defense attorney Terence Lynam asked the judge to show compassion because of Rajaratnam's illnesses, saying: "He does not deserve to die in prison." "The Rajaratnam probe relied heavily on the most extensive use of wiretaps ever for a white-collar case. Prosecutors captured conversations in which he and his accomplices could be heard gleefully celebrating their inside information." So basically this guy has been sentenced to die in prison because he is wealthy and violated some undefined and unmentioned standard of what equals "inside trading". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninth Doctor Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 TAS has a good article on this by Roger Donway. http://www.atlassociety.org/brc/preet-bharara-raj-rajaratnam-case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 That will teach him for impeding on Congress's turf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 This is just a horrible, tragic embarrassment of "justice." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 Let's assume this behavior should not be criminal. Here are a couple questions though: was this Rajaratam guy doing the moral thing? assuming a world where this was not criminal, ought he to be liable under civil case brought by companies whose information he tried to procure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IchorFigure Posted October 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 Let's assume this behavior should not be criminal. Here are a couple questions though: was this Rajaratam guy doing the moral thing? assuming a world where this was not criminal, ought he to be liable under civil case brought by companies whose information he tried to procure? Was he getting private info from other companies by unlawful means? If so then probably. All I get out of reading articles in the media though are vague accusations of "insider trading". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 Was he getting private info from other companies by unlawful means?He is accused of was getting information private information about companies, from employees. Some of his sources were extremely high-placed ex classmates from his Wharton MBA days. If true, it is likely that the employment contracts of those sources did not allow the information to be divulged, and the accused would be aware of that. An example would be something like this. A director in Company X calls Raj after a board meeting and says: "The CEO disclosed that the company is going to get a huge investment from Buffett; the public announcement will be made after the market closes this evening." Then, Raj acts on this information by trading in the company's stock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IchorFigure Posted October 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 Would that would be a nondisclosure agreement? If so then I think you're right that it would be proper to bring him into court. But only between him and the informants and their companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 Not knowing many specifics, in general I think if a legitimate contract is broken, repercussions should ensue. Still, breaking a contract might be moral, given some circumstances. So then, to generalize an immoral scenario, if one has honest business relationships, one should not use them to the "advantage" of dishonest gain. Still, in that immoral scenario, legality might not come into play -- they would only mix if legit law breaking coincided with dishonest business dealings. In this story's case, if no legitimate legal obligations were broken, the government has no business doing anything about it. My comment was a reaction to a guy losing 11 years of his life, and his career, because of insider trading laws. If he really is a sleezeball, I wouldn't defend him personally, but I would still defend the principle of repealing bad laws, and not punishing people with government force for being sleezeballs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.