Well it dents the accusation that the justice system doesn't punish the 'rich.' But we'll hear further rationalizations, like "Well if he was white and rich, then he would have gotten off." but those are just rationalizations of course.
I feel sorry that the guy didn't get better advice from his peers.
It's possible that they were completely innocent, but from the information in the article, that is not guaranteed. Any one of them may have known he was up to no good and silently accepted his actions, or perhaps even encouraged him in some way.
It's nicer to think of them as being completely innocent though.
If I were sending a 60+ year old man to jail for what could potentially be the rest of his life, maybe I would cry to. A thing to keep in mind is that Mr. Gupta does not come of as an 'evil' person. He has done quite a lot of good in the world too and was and probably still is one of the sharpest minds in the corporate world. Obviously he lost all respect by doing this, but that doesn't mean one does not feel bad seeing a man's reputation and life so thoroughly destroyed by his own greed.
Seriously now? You must be living in some sort of a comic book where people are only good or bad, never inbetween.
Its a common thing for people doing evil to feel bad and doing good things to make themselves feel better. Vito Corleone was named "godfather" with a good reason.
And following your thinking, one can cry for Adolph Hitler, because:
- he overcame chaos in Germany, restored order and enormously raised production in all fields of national economy
- he politically united the German nation
- he rearmed it militarily
- he tried to liquidate the Treaty
- he have restored the Reich and the provinces grabbed from Germany in 1919
- he had led millions of deeply unhappy Germans back into the Fatherland
.. and so on. Now, would you cry for him?
edit: obviously looking back in time, he turned out to be a monster, but at some point he had over 90% approval in ratings.
There is a legitimate school of thought that says insider trading is not actually wrong, and should be legal. I don't subscribe to it myself, but "evil" is a very strong word, especially when followed by comparisons to genocidal dictators.
Your argument is weird. The fact that people are not just good or bad but in between is exactly why I said the jurors felt bad giving this verdict. They saw Gupta as someone who has been close to good most of his life (he was at McKinsey for 40 years without a single blemish on his record!). And then you somehow invert the your own point and say that you should not feel sorry for Gupta because he is apparently evil like Hitler? And none of your points make me personally feel anything good about Hitler. Compare that with Gupta's life and tell me seriously if that is a fair comparison:
- orphaned at 18 with very little money
- studied hard and ranked 15th in the entire country and got admitted to IIT
- Got an MBA from Harvard
- Worked at McKinsey till 2011 making to the the post of Managing Director (the first MD of McKinsey from outside US)
- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajat_Gupta#Philanthropy]
Juror can say whatever they want to but the bottom line is is that when you in front of jury, they need to judge you based on your case merits, not whether you did or did not do something good or bad in your life. This is simple irrelevant to case in front of the judge.
Check the case of Casey Anthony, for example. She has been giving sleeping pills to her daughter while partying carelessly in the town. She is a bad person and was terrible mother, but yet importunately there was not enough evidence to sentence her. The jury judged based on evidence presented, not because whether she was a good or bad person. And I believe its a fair system. Otherwise one could have a spat with another and become a priest, teach and help people for 50 years, then blew his opponent head and be found not guilty because he did so many good things in his life. It doesnt work like that.
Whether he was orphan or not, studied to rank 15th or not is truly irrelevant. There is hundred million people throughout the modern world history in similar position than you never heard of (orphan, no parents, brilliant, good grades, etc). But the big different is that Gupta is a sentenced and convicted _criminal_ and they are not!
Further, I cannot compare Gupta's life to Hitler's, because the latter is dead, and Gupta is "not done yet", so its like comparing apples to oranges. But let's play this game. If we would jump into Time Machine and went back in time before September 1939, having the same conversation you would be beaten down by 90% of voters that were with Hitler. I don't know about you, but surely I wouldn't like to stand against 90% of population of a country like Germany. Probably by the end of day number 2, arguing with 90% of population you would be hanging on the pole with hands tighten behind your back. But I agree what happened next, that's a different story.
> But I sense that we are different people, so arguing further with you will be moot.
We all not that different, my friend. We all had the same grand-grand-parents.
I saw your comment about the word "evil" and how you are using it after I wrote my reply to you. That all sins are equally evil is not something I believe.
Agreed. If all evils are equal, then he should be rallying for the hangman's death of every jay-walker, traffic speeder or panhandler. By his argument, almost everybody in the world could die, and he'd be a-okay. I believe he is overstating his opinion.
Further, Hitler DID do a lot of good things in his lifetime, they are just typically outweighed by the massive amounts of evil he did later. If he's unable to see that even bad people can do good things, good people can do bad things, and that most people are just 'somewhere' in the middle (hopefully) trying to do more good things than bad, then I believe it is he who doesn't understand the notion of 'shades of gray'.
That's the first I've heard that "the Bible" states that all sins are equally evil. Which bible's word are you following? Depending on other possible statements, it seems very likely that you would end up in a position where the punishment for killing someone would have to be the same as the punishment for stealing a candy bar.
One way of viewing the bible is descriptive rather than prescriptive on this issue. For example, the bible says that all sin is equal, but not how to judge or punish that sin. That makes sense in the context of there only being one Judge.
Personally, I think this is more about a sense of power, rather than simply 'billionaire envy'. I've seen that people at a certain level think that normal rules don't apply to them. This operates quite insidiously too, it's not always a chest thumping, fist pumping, 'I rule the world' kind of behaviour. I imagine Mr Gupta thinks of himself as a regular law abiding citizen, but didn't think there was anything wrong about him helping out a friend with his contacts.
Also, I'm quite astonished by the fact that that 60 of the 66 charges have been resolved by guilty pleas or verdict. In many of these high profile cases, detractors claim 'witch hunt', and a quite often win on appeal. However, with these statistics, anyone who claims that there isn't something rotten going on is on doesn't have much to stand on.
All in all however, a 63 year old man who was something of a personal icon is going to jail. Sad, particularly for his family, but count me impressed by Preet Bharara.
What a joke. I guess some of the old white people on Wall Street didn't like him taking away from their profits. Anyone who has worked on wall street knows that insider trading is common place. They may call it analysis, but the bottom line is that they trade on information that others (you and I) do not (yet) have. Even milliseconds matter.
I keep telling folks that invest in the stock market that they're playing a game...their game.
I find that gambling in stocks is more dangerous than playing the lottery once a week.
Some will argue with me and tell me that 'if you work hard and study the market, you will know how to play stocks' but my question to them is why are they reading this post?
If you're investing according to general guidelines, like investing a fixed amount each month, keeping it in, not trying to time the market, and so forth, there's very little stress. The more your investing strategy resembles gambling, the more stressful it will be.
On Bloomberg News, Gupta's time with Goldman Sachs was emphasized over his time at McKinsey. On NPR, they didn't even mention his role at McKinsey. On NYT (this article), they stress Gupta's time at McKinsey over his time at GS.
I wonder what kind of biases or vested interests (perhaps) we can infer from this. (Or perhaps I'm overthinking this)
Gupta retired from McKinsey in 2007 and then leaked secrets from Goldman's board in 2008... and that's what he was prosecuted for. So it does make sense that his association with Goldman would get primary billing. As the NYT article states, "Mr. Gupta’s illegal conduct started after he retired from McKinsey."
At the same time, it's definitely of note that Gupta not only headed up McKinsey but that he violated its core principle of client confidentiality:
<< “McKinsey’s core business principle is to guard the confidential and private information of its clients,” said a former McKinsey executive who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. “It is mind-blowing that the guy who ran the firm for so many years could be going to jail for violating that principle.” >>
So I can see why both associations would be worth noting. I don't think there's a major bias or vested interest here.
Having worked there - yes the culture of keeping confidentiality was incredibly strong. We shared learnings but not details, and everything shared would be disguised.
Even today, 11 years later, you won't catch me saying former client names.
Like give the money back? To who? You're also creating a perverse incentive. Steal and not get caught, keep the money. Steal and get caught, give it back. Heads I win, tails you lose.
You could fine him treble damages or something, but if most of his income derived from insider trading, there's no way to apply the penalty.
An alternative in which direction? Like, a nice hotel ... or hanging?
Insider trading is basically theft, only with no specific victim, and no broken windows; a very clean crime. Insider trading is stealing from other shareholders, which might include pension funds of HN readers.
I think you'd find the conversations of every board member right after a board meeting at a high profile bank very very interesting.
I think Rajat just had the friend who got caught or he might not have realized (unlikely) what Ratnam was doing with the information or he thought he'd never get caught because its pretty normal behavior on wall street.
I'd bet its the latter. Insider trading is much more prevalent than people think.
Am I the only one that thinks that "insider trading" is pretty much how most of Wall Street & Washington DC works, period? Lots of "tips" passed around, favoritism, loose talk, secret undocumented deals and promises, shell games, front running, nepotism, kickbacks, non-monetary compensation & bribes, etc. This is probably just one particular cockroach that happened to get seen when the lights in the kitchen were turned on one night. But there's hundreds more back under the appliances and in the walls you didn't see.
Gupta and Rajaratnam are the ones that were chosen to fall. The crimes are perpetrated on a daily basis by a whole slew of individuals and firms, but someone had to walk the plank to create the illusion that something is being done.
It’s likely that the verdict is right and Mr.Gupta is guilty. However, I get the sense that he is caught because he is an outsider playing an insider game. The “old boys” club of White hedge fund guys who do this on a regular basis are protected enough to evade this fate.
Preet Bahrara (being Brown himself) finds it easier to go after the Indian guys than high powered White financiers. Will be great to see this proven wrong and White (All) crooks paying the price. Right now these guys are the white collar criminal equivalent of Blacks for lower level criminal activity – over represented due to race bias.
Mr. Gupta’s friends adamantly dispute the notion that he was driven by material gain. At the trial, his private banker at JPMorgan Chase pegged his family’s net worth at $130 million, in addition to his home in Westport, Conn., a waterfront mansion once owned by the retail executive J. C. Penney.
“I don’t know who came up with this business that Rajat had billionaire envy,” said Anil Sood, a childhood friend from India who now lives in Virginia. “He has always been quite content with his wealth.”
Net worth of only $130,000,000? No, clearly this man has never been driven by material gain!
54 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 122 ms ] threadI feel sorry that the guy didn't get better advice from his peers.
What's up with this?
It's nicer to think of them as being completely innocent though.
Its a common thing for people doing evil to feel bad and doing good things to make themselves feel better. Vito Corleone was named "godfather" with a good reason.
And following your thinking, one can cry for Adolph Hitler, because:
- he overcame chaos in Germany, restored order and enormously raised production in all fields of national economy
- he politically united the German nation
- he rearmed it militarily
- he tried to liquidate the Treaty
- he have restored the Reich and the provinces grabbed from Germany in 1919
- he had led millions of deeply unhappy Germans back into the Fatherland
.. and so on. Now, would you cry for him?
edit: obviously looking back in time, he turned out to be a monster, but at some point he had over 90% approval in ratings.
:)
- orphaned at 18 with very little money - studied hard and ranked 15th in the entire country and got admitted to IIT - Got an MBA from Harvard - Worked at McKinsey till 2011 making to the the post of Managing Director (the first MD of McKinsey from outside US) - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajat_Gupta#Philanthropy]
See this Bloomberg article which pretty much says something similar - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-15/in-gupta-jurors-saw....
But I sense that we are different people, so arguing further with you will be moot.
Juror can say whatever they want to but the bottom line is is that when you in front of jury, they need to judge you based on your case merits, not whether you did or did not do something good or bad in your life. This is simple irrelevant to case in front of the judge.
Check the case of Casey Anthony, for example. She has been giving sleeping pills to her daughter while partying carelessly in the town. She is a bad person and was terrible mother, but yet importunately there was not enough evidence to sentence her. The jury judged based on evidence presented, not because whether she was a good or bad person. And I believe its a fair system. Otherwise one could have a spat with another and become a priest, teach and help people for 50 years, then blew his opponent head and be found not guilty because he did so many good things in his life. It doesnt work like that.
Whether he was orphan or not, studied to rank 15th or not is truly irrelevant. There is hundred million people throughout the modern world history in similar position than you never heard of (orphan, no parents, brilliant, good grades, etc). But the big different is that Gupta is a sentenced and convicted _criminal_ and they are not!
Further, I cannot compare Gupta's life to Hitler's, because the latter is dead, and Gupta is "not done yet", so its like comparing apples to oranges. But let's play this game. If we would jump into Time Machine and went back in time before September 1939, having the same conversation you would be beaten down by 90% of voters that were with Hitler. I don't know about you, but surely I wouldn't like to stand against 90% of population of a country like Germany. Probably by the end of day number 2, arguing with 90% of population you would be hanging on the pole with hands tighten behind your back. But I agree what happened next, that's a different story.
> But I sense that we are different people, so arguing further with you will be moot.
We all not that different, my friend. We all had the same grand-grand-parents.
Further, Hitler DID do a lot of good things in his lifetime, they are just typically outweighed by the massive amounts of evil he did later. If he's unable to see that even bad people can do good things, good people can do bad things, and that most people are just 'somewhere' in the middle (hopefully) trying to do more good things than bad, then I believe it is he who doesn't understand the notion of 'shades of gray'.
Also, I'm quite astonished by the fact that that 60 of the 66 charges have been resolved by guilty pleas or verdict. In many of these high profile cases, detractors claim 'witch hunt', and a quite often win on appeal. However, with these statistics, anyone who claims that there isn't something rotten going on is on doesn't have much to stand on.
All in all however, a 63 year old man who was something of a personal icon is going to jail. Sad, particularly for his family, but count me impressed by Preet Bharara.
PS FTR: I'm old, and white.
I find that gambling in stocks is more dangerous than playing the lottery once a week.
Some will argue with me and tell me that 'if you work hard and study the market, you will know how to play stocks' but my question to them is why are they reading this post?
CNBC has this show I like to watch called American Greed where they talk about people who do scams from large to small.
They had a great episode about the guy he got caught dealing with Raj Rajaratnam
Episode summary here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/45555924
If you scroll all the way to bottom you can even here a recording of one of their conversations
I wonder what kind of biases or vested interests (perhaps) we can infer from this. (Or perhaps I'm overthinking this)
At the same time, it's definitely of note that Gupta not only headed up McKinsey but that he violated its core principle of client confidentiality:
<< “McKinsey’s core business principle is to guard the confidential and private information of its clients,” said a former McKinsey executive who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. “It is mind-blowing that the guy who ran the firm for so many years could be going to jail for violating that principle.” >>
So I can see why both associations would be worth noting. I don't think there's a major bias or vested interest here.
This made me spit coffee on my keyboard.
You could fine him treble damages or something, but if most of his income derived from insider trading, there's no way to apply the penalty.
Insider trading is basically theft, only with no specific victim, and no broken windows; a very clean crime. Insider trading is stealing from other shareholders, which might include pension funds of HN readers.
Some discussion of impacts of insider trading here - http://money.howstuffworks.com/insider-trading3.htm
I think Rajat just had the friend who got caught or he might not have realized (unlikely) what Ratnam was doing with the information or he thought he'd never get caught because its pretty normal behavior on wall street.
I'd bet its the latter. Insider trading is much more prevalent than people think.
Preet Bahrara (being Brown himself) finds it easier to go after the Indian guys than high powered White financiers. Will be great to see this proven wrong and White (All) crooks paying the price. Right now these guys are the white collar criminal equivalent of Blacks for lower level criminal activity – over represented due to race bias.
“I don’t know who came up with this business that Rajat had billionaire envy,” said Anil Sood, a childhood friend from India who now lives in Virginia. “He has always been quite content with his wealth.”
Net worth of only $130,000,000? No, clearly this man has never been driven by material gain!