Well… you decide, after reading this,  just why Rajat Gupta ought to pay for Wall Street excesses….

And why he should be equated with Ivan Boesky.

Mind you, this writer wants him to get much, much more than the three years Boesky got.

Richard Levick, who takes his role as a pundit super seriously:

“Rajat Gupta an unwitting dupe? That seems a gross underestimation of a man who’s circumnavigated the financial markets as ably as anyone in recent history.

Here the jurors may have missed the compelling tie that bound Gupta to Rajaratnam but, if so, it’s not the jurors’ fault. They just don’t happen to live and work in a world like Wall Street where favors are done and relationships cultivated at any cost; where informal conversations slip into illegality with amazing nonchalance; where secrets are traded like marbles; where insider trading is, as Gupta’s prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Preet Bahara put it, a “performance-enhancing drug.”

It’s called “intangible benefits.” Because he sought and savored those benefits so avidly, Rajat Gupta, for all his virtues, must do time. The question is, how much time? – which brings us to October 16, 2012 when Judge Rakoff will decide that very question….

…No doubt, the very fact that someone of Gupta’s stature will go to jail sends a welcome message, not just to those managers but to investors who still pine for a marketplace not gamed by a handful of insiders.

But the best argument for a relatively stiff sentence takes us back to that issue of motive by which Gupta supporters would seek to at least partially excuse him. To the contrary, Gupta’s motive ought to work against him. The very fact that he was driven by those “intangible benefits,” rather than money, proves that Wall Street’s culture itself, and its whole mélange of winks and nods, faces sentencing on October 16.”

Comment:

This morally and intellectually bankrupt piece sounds all the establishment left memes.

“Greed” is what must be punished, not specific wrongs doing. A legal case must be turned into a morality play.

Gupta must be punished for wanting to be a player (a  fact that hasn’t been established yet and one that is not a crime by any definition).

Media stories have repeatedly said that the jury was terribly sympathetic, although it doesn’t look like it, from the speed with which they decided.

And it doesn’t look like it, from the racial composition of the jury.  Fairness, let alone sympathy, would have demanded at least one Indian or South Asian.

The propaganda to cover up the gross inequity of the case started almost immediately, with pieces about how “conflicted” the jury was and how some jury members cried.

Then there were pieces that dwelled on the defendant’s family attendance at the trial, claiming that the defense amounted to not much more than “he’s a good guy,” and explaining, ponderously, why that wouldn’t fly in such a stronghold of justice as New York City.

Then, just so you don’t miss it, Levick quotes Preet Bharara’s completely unprofessional comments about Wall Street culture and  performance-enhancing drugs.

What, Mr. Bharara’s not only running for New York governor, he wants to be Solon now too?

What kind of a prosecutor sounds off like this publicly about his cases?

The sneer at the idea that Gupta might not been confident about being able to navigate the world of private equity is also misplaced.

Management consulting (Gupta’s background) is far removed from the world of private equity and sovereign wealth funds.

He might not have been intimidated, but it’s not at all implausible that he was cautious, insecure, and unsure about how to make the transition from one world to the other.

Apparently, Rajaratnam had figured out he was insecure, because he asked a co-conspirator if  Gupta was a “big boy,” after swindling him of his money.

Levick should actually crack open a book  sometime.

What truly evil ignorant drivel…