Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Defense's Sentencing Memorandum

Defense's Sentencing Memorandum

Ratings: (0)|Views: 27,197 |Likes:
Published by DealBook
Defense's Sentencing Memorandum for Raj Rajaratnam.
Defense's Sentencing Memorandum for Raj Rajaratnam.

More info:

Published by: DealBook on Aug 10, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ::- v.- :: S2 09-CR-1184 (RJH)RAJ RAJARATNAM, ::Defendant. :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RAJ RAJARATNAM
John M. DowdTerence J. LynamJeffrey M. KingSamidh GuhaJames E. SherryCatherine E. CreelyAKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20036(202) 887-4000August 9, 2011
Case 1:09-cr-01184-RJH Document 304 Filed 08/09/11 Page 1 of 79
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
I.
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
II.
THE HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEFENDANT .............................3
A.
Mr. Rajaratnam’s Personal Background And Education..........................................3
B.
Mr. Rajaratnam’s Professional Achievements And Founding Of TheGalleon Group ..........................................................................................................4
C.
Mr. Rajaratnam’s Personal And Family Life ...........................................................8
D.
Mr. Rajaratnam’s Outstanding Record Of Supporting Needy OrganizationsAnd Individuals ......................................................................................................10
III.
THE ADVISORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES ............................................................14
IV.
THE NATURE AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE .............................................17
V.
THE CALCULATION OF GAIN UNDER THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES ...........20
A.
The Government’s Methodology Is Flawed And Improperly Inflates TheProfits On The Trades In Question ........................................................................21
B.
The More Accurate Approach To Calculating Profit .............................................25
C.
The Gain Amount Should Not Include “Losses Avoided” .....................................26
D.
The Gain Amount Should Be Limited To Gains Actually Realized By TheDefendant ...............................................................................................................31
VI.
THE GUIDELINES CALCULATION OVERSTATES THE SERIOUSNESS OFTHE OFFENSE .................................................................................................................35
VII.
 NO LEADERSHIP ENHANCEMENT IS APPROPRIATE UNDER USSG§3B1.1. ...............................................................................................................................39
VIII.
 NO OBSTRUCTION ENHANCEMENT IS APPROPRIATE UNDER USSG§ 3C1.1 ..............................................................................................................................44
A.
Legal Principles .....................................................................................................45
B.
Mr. Rajaratnam Did Not Obstruct Justice ..............................................................46
IX.
THE NEED TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO THE DEFENDANT IN THEMOST EFFECTIVE MANNER ........................................................................................55
X.
THE NEED TO AVOID UNWARRANTED SENTENCING DISPARITIES ..................58
XI.
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................67
Case 1:09-cr-01184-RJH Document 304 Filed 08/09/11 Page 2 of 79
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)C
ASES
 Basic, Inc. v Levinson
,485 U.S. 224 (1988) .................................................................................................................48
 Bateman Eichler, Hill, Richards, Inc. v. Berner 
,472 U.S. 299 (1985) .................................................................................................................20
 Bronston v. United States
,408 U.S. 352 (1973) ...........................................................................................................46, 50
 Dirks v. SEC 
,463 U.S. 646 (1983) .................................................................................................................18
 Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo
,544 U.S. 336 (2005) ...........................................................................................................21, 22
 In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Securities Litig.
,245 F.R.D. 147 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) .............................................................................................25
 In re Northern Telecom Ltd. Securities Litig.
,116 F. Supp. 2d 446 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)......................................................................................25
SEC v. Monarch Fund 
,608 F.3d 938 (2d Cir. 1979)...............................................................................................19, 20
SEC v. Tome
,638 F. Supp. 596 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)...........................................................................................20
United States v. Adelson
,441 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)....................................................................15, 16, 65, 66
United States v. Ayers et al.
, No. 2:03-cr-00183 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 10, 2003) .........................................................................62
United States v. Barbato
, No. 00-CR-1028, 2002 WL 31556376 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2002) ..........................................56
United States v. Beam
, No. 2:03-cr-00197 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 25, 2005) .........................................................................62
United States v. Ben-Shimon
,249 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2001).......................................................................................................45
United States v. Blarek 
,7 F. Supp. 2d 192 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) .........................................................................................57
Case 1:09-cr-01184-RJH Document 304 Filed 08/09/11 Page 3 of 79

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->