Comments on: The Gupta-Rajaratnam tapes A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: traducere romana daneza Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:59:49 +0000 I received my qrlgcsju’S FOR Your Yuletide When i Dropped For each other At a shop! They are simply Now Relaxing I WISH We could Sleep at night Inside. It happens to be Worth the cost. Appreciate Adore Really enjoy These individuals!!

By: WithoutMalice Mon, 07 Mar 2011 22:07:49 +0000 It is a little odd, isn’t it.

It is also extremely odd that Rajat Gupta was not criminally charged at all despite the fact that his conduct more egregiously violated the letter and spirit of the insider trading laws than than any other defendant in the probe. Indeed, the conduct of the “expert network” defendants, whom Preet Bharara is trying to put in federal prison for 10-20 years, was child-like in comparison.

It is also odd that Gupta was charged by even the SEC in only an administrative proceeding unlike ALL of the other two-dozen defendants, who were instead charged by the SEC in federal court. As lawyers who work in this area know, an administrative proceeding is the lightest possible thing Robert Khuzami could do to Gupta while still doing “something.” That extraordinarily, inexplicably light treatment was reserved for him and him alone.

Yes, the behavior of Bharara and Khuzami is quite odd. It is odd simply because they are setting the stage to give Gupta, as a member of the protected elite, a pass.

And Bharara and Khuzami will give Gupta a pass because they are quite aware that their future millions in pay-offs from white-shoe law firms (disguised as “compensation” for their inexpert but well-connected representation of future members of the protected elite) depends on it.

Sadly, disgracefully, corruptly odd.

By: rb6 Mon, 07 Mar 2011 18:46:58 +0000 There are several reasons why prosecutors generally withhold at least some incriminating evidence. If you think there is room for negotiation and plea bargaining you don’t lay everything you have on the table. Not giving the exact contents is a way of keeping your cards close to the vest in order to maximize your leverage and minimize the time the defendant has to make up excuses for why the conversation didn’t mean what the government thought it did. It also more than likely protects the party who agreed to the tape (if any) from being identifiable, which is much easier to do if the contents of the conversation are included. This means there is less of an opportunity to influence a potential witness.