3evidence suggested that Rajaratnam and others conducted their scheme by telephone.Accordingly, disclosure of all the details of the SEC’s investigation that the governmentrecklessly omitted would ultimately have shown that a wiretap was necessary andappropriate.Finally, the government complied with its statutory responsibility to minimizerecording calls unrelated to the crimes the government had probable cause to suspect.
The United States Attorney’s Office for this district (“USAO”) and the FBI beganthe criminal investigation resulting in the indictment of Rajaratnam in 2007.
Theinvestigation of Chiesi apparently did not begin until later, sometime in mid-2008. Inconnection with these investigations, the government sought and obtained authorizationto wiretap Rajaratnam’s and Chiesi’s phones.The government first sought authorization to wiretap Rajaratnam’s cell phone inan application submitted to Judge Lynch on March 7, 2008. (Gov’t Opp’n to RajaratnamEx. 1-A.) Attached to that sworn application was a 53-page affidavit of FBI SpecialAgent B. J. Kang (“Kang”). (Gov’t Opp’n to Rajaratnam Ex. 1-C.) Judge Lynch grantedthe application for a 30-day wiretap, finding (1) probable cause that Rajaratnam andothers were involved,
, in wire fraud the extent of which would be revealedthrough the interception of telephone communications, and (2) that a wiretap wasnecessary in that normal investigative techniques were or would be unlikely to succeed inuncovering the fraud. (Gov’t Opp’n to Rajaratnam Ex. 1-D.) The government began
The USAO and the FBI are referred to separately and together as “the government” or,occasionally, “the prosecutor” or “the criminal authorities.” The Securities and ExchangeCommission is referred to as the SEC throughout.
Case 1:09-cr-01184-RJH Document 148 Filed 11/24/10 Page 3 of 68