GoldmanSachs666 Message Board

According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[1] In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain
*As defined in Wikipedia

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

A Tale of Two Who Worked for Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs is not kind to its employees if they stray from their golden path.  Sergey Aleynikov is in court again being prosecuted twice for the same crime.  He is able, however, to demand that Goldman pay for his legal fees:  the law allows for public companies to pay such costs and Aleynikov's former position at Goldman entitles him to seek this payment.

Fabrice Tourre, still waiting in the wings to face SEC charges while he was at Goldman, has also received payment of his legal expenses by Goldman.

In spite of these perks, you never want to get on the wrong side of Goldman Sachs.
In Goldman Programmer Case, a Way Around Double Jeopardy
By Peter J. Henning - DealBook (New York Times) 
. . . .
Although the “dual sovereignty” doctrine allows New York State to charge Mr. Aleynikov with a similar crime, the state also has a statute providing that “a person may not be twice prosecuted for the same offense.” That provision blocks most cases involving conduct already prosecuted by another state or the federal government.

Once again, however, the law is not as simple as it first appears because the statute has an important exception if the earlier case was “terminated by a court order expressly founded upon insufficiency of evidence to establish some element of such offense which is not an element of the other offense, defined by the laws of this state.” Roughly translated, that means Mr. Aleynikov probably can be prosecuted again because the federal case focused on tangible property, while the New York charges cover computer programs.

There is a good chance the latest charges will move forward, which makes Mr. Aleynikov’s demand that Goldman pay his legal fees all the more important because the earlier case essentially bankrupted him. According to a complaint filed in the United States District Court in New Jersey, he claims that the legal fees for the federal case were approximately $2.4 million, and the state case is likely to run up a similar bill.

Read the entire piece here


Post a Comment