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
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Rajaratnam's Sentencing Memo

Rajaratnam's Sentencing Memo

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6,981 |Likes:
Published by DealBook
Raj Rajaratnam's sentencing memo.
Raj Rajaratnam's sentencing memo.

More info:

Published by: DealBook on Sep 12, 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

09/12/2011

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
REPLY SENTENCING MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RAJ RAJARATNAM
John M. Dowd (admitted
 pro hac vice
)Terence J. Lynam (admitted
 pro hac vice
)James E. Sherry (admitted
 pro hac vice
)AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20036(202) 887-4000Samidh Guha (SG-5759)AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLPOne Bryant Park  New York, NY 10036(212) 872-1000
 Attorneys for Raj Rajaratnam
September 9, 2011 New York, NY
Case 1:09-cr-01184-RJH Document 309 Filed 09/09/11 Page 1 of 54
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1
II. THE ADVISORY GUIDELINES SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED IN THIS CASEBECAUSE THEY DO NOT REFLECT AN EMPIRICAL APPROACH BASED ONPAST PRACTICE AND OVERSTATE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE .................5
III. THE GOVERNMENT MISAPPLIES THE ADVISORY GUIDELINES .............................. 11
1.
The Government’s Gain Calculation is Flawed ..................................................... 11
a.
The Government’s Calculations Overstate Gain ........................................12
 b.
The Court Should Not Consider “Losses Avoided” ...................................14
c.
The Government’s Gain Calculation Overstates the Seriousness of the Offense Because Mr. Rajaratnam Personally Realized Only aSmall Fraction of the Gain .........................................................................17
d.
The Court Should Not Consider the CRS Trades ......................................18
2.
 No Leadership Enhancement Applies ....................................................................22
3.
 No Obstruction Enhancement Applies ...................................................................24
IV. THE GOVERNMENT’S ALLEGATIONS OF “ADDITIONAL RELEVANTCONDUCT” ARE UNFOUNDED AND MISLEADING ......................................................27
1.
The Government Has Not Proven that Mr. Rajaratnam Engaged inCriminal Conduct with Ali Far ..............................................................................28
2.
The Government Has Not Proven Mr. Rajaratnam Corrupted a CiscoExecutive................................................................................................................29
3.
The Government Has Not Proven that Mr. Rajaratnam Engaged inCriminal Conduct with Zvi Goffer and Craig Drimal ...........................................32
4.
The Government Has Not Proven that Mr. Rajaratnam Engaged inCriminal Conduct with Roomy Khan in the 1990s ................................................34
V. THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT FOUND BY THE JURY DOES NOT WARRANT ANEXCEPTIONALLY SEVERE SENTENCE .............................................................................34
1.
Respect for the Law and Acceptance of Responsibility .........................................34
2.
Alleged Efforts to Conceal Criminal Activity .......................................................35
3.
Unfounded Speculation About Undetected Criminal Conduct ..............................37
4.
Alleged Corruption of Others ................................................................................39
VI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE WARRANT A SENTENCESUBSTANTIALLY BELOW THE GUIDELINES RANGE ..................................................41
1.
Mr. Rajaratnam’s Extraordinary Record of Charitable Works WarrantsLeniency .................................................................................................................41
2.
The Purposes of Federal Sentencing Are Best Served by a SentenceSubstantially Below the Advisory Guidelines Range ............................................42
Case 1:09-cr-01184-RJH Document 309 Filed 09/09/11 Page 2 of 54
 
iiVII. MR. RAJARATNAM SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN ON BAILPENDING APPEAL ...............................................................................................................45
VIII. CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................45
Case 1:09-cr-01184-RJH Document 309 Filed 09/09/11 Page 3 of 54

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

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