4 ms·

The problem here isn't so much with the facts, it's with the prosecutors and polices eagerness in pursuing it. They only mention it in passing, but the reason

The problem here isn't so much with the facts, it's with the prosecutors and polices eagerness in pursuing it. They only mention it in passing, but the reason he got all that evidence thrown out was essentially that the police were acting on very little else than Goldmans assertion. Then he got acquitted on what was if you want to a "legal loophole", but still (and even that only happened a few steps up on the jurisdictional ladder, even though the law clearly didn't apply to him). And then they charged him again, with essentially the same crime. So the same people that can't manage to put a single Goldman dude behind bars are all too happy to destroy lives on Goldmans words.

tptacek 12y ago
I'm not sure I follow. Your comment starts by saying the problem isn't with the facts --- tacitly agreeing with 'chollida1 that wrongdoing was established --- but ends with the assertion that Aleynikov was convicted "on Goldman's words". Can you help me understand how both of those things can be true?
- shabda 12y ago
  Not the OP, but I read his comment as frustration with "One law for rich, another for the poor". One can agree that Aleynikov should be convicted, but hope that the law should pursue people who play fast and lose with public money with the same zeal they shown here.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Sure. But perhaps some of that frustration should be directed at legislatures that are too afraid of disrupting the economy and being blamed for job loss to criminalize the shady stuff giant banks do? Because one reason there's "one law" for people like Aleynikov and another for bank execs is that theft is black-letter illegal, and whatever-it-is we want to blame GS for might not be, yet. One bias prosecutors definitely have is taking cases they think they can win.
    - erikpukinskis 12y ago
      Fraud is definitely illegal.
- dmix 12y ago
  > the police were acting on very little else than Goldmans assertion That's a fair statement by the OP. The external criticism has always been there was a lack of a full investigation from a neutral position by the state, as investigators depended on Goldman Sachs people to determine the crime. Outside neutral parties weren't consulted AFAIK. Which is typically the case when sophisticated crimes take place - such as bringing in private industry experts. Whether or not that would have resulted in different charges or handling by the police is up for debate. But it is certain that the worst of the original charges were found to be baseless, prosecutors were over-aggressive, and most of the evidence was thrown out because they didn't have a proper basis to conduct search warrants.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Criminal proceedings are adversarial. The defense brings in experts specifically to rebut the charges. The prosecution brings in experts to support them. Where do "neutral experts" fit into this process?
    - pyre 12y ago
      Neutral in that the police and prosecutors verify that the claims by the victim are actually true otherwise anyone could use the police/prosecutors for destroy someone that they didn't like. Much in the same way that ICE has acted like the enforcement arm of the RIAA/MPAA when taking down domains. Barely (or not at all) verifying that the domains were being used for infringement (instead just taking a list given to them by the RIAA/MPAA and acting on it blindly).
      - tptacek 12y ago
        To the extent that's true, it's not really material to this case, right? His own lawyer stipulated to the facts. The dispute was a matter of law, not of fact. I agree with the prevailing sentiment on HN that (a) it's too easy to get an indictment (the grand jury is supposed to be adversarial against the prosecutors and isn't) and (b) prosecutors bias --- my belief is: primarily bias towards cases they can win easily --- has subverted the goal of prosecutorial discretion. But the facts of this case suggest a theft that could reasonably be valued at extremely high numbers. For it to be heard in court doesn't sound like a miscarriage of justice.
- revelation 12y ago
  It's one thing to commit a crime, and another to be put on trial* for it. The crime is his own, but I'm pretty sure the two trials are of Goldmans making. You don't get two trials and a law to boot from a single fervorous prosecutor. They would have probably already dropped this case the moment most of the evidence was ruled out and called it a day. * was sentenced
  - tptacek 12y ago
    He hasn't been sentenced for this conviction yet, right?

tptacek 12y ago

I'm not sure I follow. Your comment starts by saying the problem isn't with the facts --- tacitly agreeing with 'chollida1 that wrongdoing was established --- but ends with the assertion that Aleynikov was convicted "on Goldman's words". Can you help me understand how both of those things can be true?

shabda 12y ago
Not the OP, but I read his comment as frustration with "One law for rich, another for the poor". One can agree that Aleynikov should be convicted, but hope that the law should pursue people who play fast and lose with public money with the same zeal they shown here.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Sure. But perhaps some of that frustration should be directed at legislatures that are too afraid of disrupting the economy and being blamed for job loss to criminalize the shady stuff giant banks do? Because one reason there's "one law" for people like Aleynikov and another for bank execs is that theft is black-letter illegal, and whatever-it-is we want to blame GS for might not be, yet. One bias prosecutors definitely have is taking cases they think they can win.
  - erikpukinskis 12y ago
    Fraud is definitely illegal.
dmix 12y ago
> the police were acting on very little else than Goldmans assertion That's a fair statement by the OP. The external criticism has always been there was a lack of a full investigation from a neutral position by the state, as investigators depended on Goldman Sachs people to determine the crime. Outside neutral parties weren't consulted AFAIK. Which is typically the case when sophisticated crimes take place - such as bringing in private industry experts. Whether or not that would have resulted in different charges or handling by the police is up for debate. But it is certain that the worst of the original charges were found to be baseless, prosecutors were over-aggressive, and most of the evidence was thrown out because they didn't have a proper basis to conduct search warrants.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Criminal proceedings are adversarial. The defense brings in experts specifically to rebut the charges. The prosecution brings in experts to support them. Where do "neutral experts" fit into this process?
  - pyre 12y ago
    Neutral in that the police and prosecutors verify that the claims by the victim are actually true otherwise anyone could use the police/prosecutors for destroy someone that they didn't like. Much in the same way that ICE has acted like the enforcement arm of the RIAA/MPAA when taking down domains. Barely (or not at all) verifying that the domains were being used for infringement (instead just taking a list given to them by the RIAA/MPAA and acting on it blindly).
    - tptacek 12y ago
      To the extent that's true, it's not really material to this case, right? His own lawyer stipulated to the facts. The dispute was a matter of law, not of fact. I agree with the prevailing sentiment on HN that (a) it's too easy to get an indictment (the grand jury is supposed to be adversarial against the prosecutors and isn't) and (b) prosecutors bias --- my belief is: primarily bias towards cases they can win easily --- has subverted the goal of prosecutorial discretion. But the facts of this case suggest a theft that could reasonably be valued at extremely high numbers. For it to be heard in court doesn't sound like a miscarriage of justice.
revelation 12y ago
It's one thing to commit a crime, and another to be put on trial* for it. The crime is his own, but I'm pretty sure the two trials are of Goldmans making. You don't get two trials and a law to boot from a single fervorous prosecutor. They would have probably already dropped this case the moment most of the evidence was ruled out and called it a day. * was sentenced
- tptacek 12y ago
  He hasn't been sentenced for this conviction yet, right?