Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Lois Lerner Held in Contempt

Last week, as reported in the New York Times (see here), the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to hold in contempt Lois Lerner, the Internal Revenue Service official who after making a brief statement declaring her innocence invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to answer questions from the Committee members.  The Committee action will be referred to the entire House of Representatives for its consideration.  If the House votes to hold Ms. Lerner in contempt, it would refer the matter to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald C. Machen, Jr., a Democrat who in my view is unlikely to pursue this politically-charged case.

The Committee vote was based on party lines, with the Republican majority voting against Ms. Lerner.  A vote of the entire Congress, if it occurs, will most likely similarly be so based.  Indeed, Representatives on the Committee took exaggerated and hyperbolic positions.  Republican John J. Duncan claimed if Ms. Lerner's position were accepted, "every defendant . . . would testify and plead the Fifth so they couldn't be cross-examined . . . ."  Democrat Elijah Cummings said if he were to vote to hold Ms. Lerner in contempt, it would "place him on the same page of the history books as Senator Joseph McCarthy."

As I said before (see here), I believe that Ms. Lerner's general declaration of innocence, before she invoked the Fifth, does not constitute a waiver, but I do not believe the issue is crystal-clear.  Lawyers who represent witnesses before legislative committees (or in other matters) should be cautious about taking such positions.

(goldman)

April 15, 2014 in Contempt, Current Affairs, Investigations, News, Privileges, Tax | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Dewey & LeBoeuf Indictment is Announced

 The big news on the white-collar crime front in New York last week was the long-expected indictment of persons involved in the defuct law firm of Dewey & LeBoeuf.  Charged were its chairman, executive director and chief financial officer, as well as a low-level client relations manager.  Seven not-yet-identified others have pleaded guilty.  Only two of the eleven criminally charged appear to be lawyers, and the cases against them may be the weakest.  See James B. Stewart, "In Dewey's Wreckage, Indictments," New Yorker Blog, March 7, 2014, see here.

The charges essentially are that the defendants cooked the books in order to keep the failing firm alive with institutional financing.  More specifically, it is charged, they falsified financial records submitted to banks and investors to demonstrate that the firm had complied with existing loan covenants and were worthy of further investor loans, and made fraudulent accounting entries to support their false representations.  The top charge is grand larceny in the first degree, theft in excess of $1 million, a Class B felony with a potential sentence of 25 years, and a minimum sentence of one to three years.

In many ways, as the facts are alleged, this is a not untypical case, where businesspeople -- ordinarily law-abiding -- fall into financial situations where they desperately need to borrow money to keep their businesses going and falsify income, receivables, expenses and the like in order to get it.  Such chicanery is far from rare and is often undetected or overlooked, particularly if the borrower improves its financial position and pays off all or a substantial part of the amount owed.  And,  if detected, such wrongdoing is often made public only in private civil litigation and without criminal prosecution.  Generally, the borrowers have an expectation and/or hope, often unreasonable, that they will ultimately be able to pay off the loan and thus arguably lack the intent to permanently deprive (an element of larceny) the lenders.

There are several interesting aspects of the case.  It is being brought by a state prosecutor -- the District Attorney of New York County -- rather than the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the predominant prosecutor of white-collar crime in Manhattan.  The District Attorney, like most state and local prosecutors forced to deal with every police street arrest, whether for murder or disorderly conduct, and lacking sufficient available personnel and resources to conduct many complicated and lengthy white-collar investigations, generally has a far less significant presence in white-collar prosecution than his federal counterpart.

More unusual, in this case, much of the legwork for the state prosecution apparently was done by the FBI (and not a state or city police agency).  Almost always, when the FBI does the investigative work on a white-collar case (or even when the work is done jointly by federal and state investigators), that case is prosecuted by federal authorities.  I do not know why this case is an exception.  Perhaps the United States Attorney declined the case because he questioned its strength or jurisdictional basis, or, even less likely, felt his resources were better used on other goals.  My best guess is that the case was prosecuted by the District Attorney because he jumped on it first, and/or was first provided evidence of alleged wrongdoing by some of the firm's unhappy partners.  In any case, if this joint effort between federal investigators and New York State prosecutors is a harbinger of further cooperative efforts, it will be a significant step forward for white-collar prosecution in New York City, the financial (and probably white-collar crime) capital of the country.  Far too often, federal authorities let significant matters brought to their attention go by the wayside because of jurisdictional problems or federal lack of interest rather than turn them over to state prosecutors.  And, far too often, state prosecutors let significant matters go by the wayside because of their lack of resources and expertise rather than turn them over to federal prosecutors.

The New York County District Attorney, Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., in a press statement, claimed that the victims were not just the lending financial institutions but also the thousands of people who lost their jobs when the firm failed.  I strongly disagree.   The firm's employees actually were for the most part beneficiaries of the loan proceeds, and therefore if the allegations are true, unknowing beneficiaries of the criminality that enabled that borrowing, which kept the firm alive and staved off bankruptcy for a time.  Those who lost their jobs when the firm ultimately failed and went into bankruptcy most likely kept those jobs much longer than they would have had the law firm not been able to secure the funding.  Dewey & LeBoeuf failed not because of criminal acts, but, if criminal acts did occur, in spite of them.

The real victims in this case, the only direct victims, are the banks and other financial institutions which loaned the firm unrecovered money.  Sometimes, in cases of this kind, the bankers are negligent in their due diligence and occasionally actually compliant with the borrowers in order to achieve short-term profits for their institutions and immediate benefits for themselves in bonuses and salary increases.  I have no knowledge that either negligence or complicity happened here.

(goldman)

 

March 12, 2014 in Current Affairs, Fraud, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Why Didn't Martoma Cooperate? And Is It Too Late?

To the surprise of nobody I know, Mathew Martoma, the former SAC Capital portfolio manager, was convicted of insider trading last Thursday by a Southern District of New York jury.  The evidence at trial was very strong.  It demonstrated that Martoma had befriended two doctors advising two drug companies on the trial of an experimental drug, received confidential information from them about the disappointing result of the drug trial prior to the public announcement, and then had a 20-minute telephone conversation with Steven A. Cohen, the SAC chair, a day or so before Cohen ordered that SAC's positions in these companies be sold off.  The purported monetary benefit to SAC, in gains and avoidance of loss, of the trades resulting from the inside information is about $275 million, suggesting that Martoma receive a sentence of over 15 years under the primarily amount-driven Sentencing Guidelines (although I expect the actual sentence will be considerably less).

Cohen is white-collar Public Enemy No. 1 to the Department of Justice, at least in its most productive white-collar office, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District.  That office has already brought monumental parallel criminal and civil cases against SAC, receiving a settlement of $1.8 billion, about a fifth of Cohen's reported personal net worth, but it has apparently not garnered sufficient evidence against Cohen to give it confidence that an indictment will lead to his conviction.  It had granted a total "walk" -- a non-prosecution agreement -- to the two doctors whose testimony it felt it needed to convict Martoma, unusually lenient concessions by an office that almost always requires substantial (and often insubstantial) white-collar wrongdoers seeking a cooperation deal to plead to a felony.  As an FBI agent told one of the doctor/co-conspirators, the doctors and Martoma were "grains of sand;" the government was after Cohen.

In an article in the New York Times last Friday, James B. Stewart, an excellent writer whose analyses I almost always agree with, asked a question many lawyers, including myself, have asked:  why didn't Martoma cooperate with the government and give up Cohen in exchange for leniency?  Mr. Stewart's answer was essentially that Martoma was unmarketable to the government because he would have been destroyed on cross-examination by revelation of his years-ago doctoring his Harvard Law School grades to attempt to secure a federal judicial clerkship and covering up that falsification by other document tampering and lying.  Mr. Stewart quotes one lawyer as saying Martoma would be made "mincemeat" after defense cross-examination, another as saying he would be "toast," and a third as saying that without solid corroborating evidence, "his testimony would be of little use."  See here

I strongly disagree with Mr. Stewart and his three sources.  The prosecution, I believe, would have welcomed Mr. Martoma to the government team in a New York minute -- assuming Martoma would have been able to provide believable testimony that Mr. Cohen was made aware of the inside information in that 20-minute conversation.  When one is really hungry -- and the Department of Justice is really hungry for Steven A. Cohen -- one will eat the only food available, even if it's "mincemeat" and "toast."  And there is certainly no moral question here; the government gave Sammy "the Bull" Gravano, a multiple murderer, a virtual pass to induce him to testify against John Gotti.  Given the seemingly irrefutable direct, circumstantial and background evidence (including, specifically, the phone call, the fact that Cohen ordered the trades and reaped the benefit, and generally, whatever evidence from the civil and criminal cases against SAC is admissible against Cohen), testimony by Martoma to the effect he told Cohen, even indirectly or unspecifically, about the information he received from the doctors would, I believe, have most likely led to Cohen's indictment.

I have no idea why Martoma did not choose to cooperate, if, as I believe, he had the opportunity.  "Cooperation," as it is euphemistically called, would require from Martoma a plea of guilty and, very likely in view of the amount of money involved, a not insubstantial prison term (although many years less than he will likely receive after his conviction by trial).  Perhaps Martoma, who put on a spirited if unconvincing defense after being caught altering his law school transcript, is just a fighter who does not easily surrender or, some would say, "face reality," even if the result of such surrender would be a comparatively short jail sentence.  (In a way, that choice is refreshing, reminding me of the days defense lawyers defended more than pleaded and/or cooperated.)  Perhaps Martoma felt cooperation, a condition of which is generally full admission of all prior crimes and bad acts, would reveal other wrongs and lead to financial losses by him and his family beyond those he faces in this case.  Perhaps he felt loyalty -- which it has been demonstrated is a somewhat uncommon trait among those charged with insider trading -- to Cohen, who has reportedly paid his legal fees and treated him well financially (and perhaps Martoma hopes will continue to do so), or perhaps to others he would have to implicate.

And perhaps -- perhaps -- the truth is that in his conversation with Cohen, he did not tell Cohen either because of caution while talking on a telephone, a deliberate effort to conceal  from Cohen direct inside information, or another reason, and he is honest enough not to fudge the truth to please the eager prosecutors, as some cooperators do.  In such a case his truthful testimony would have been unhelpful to prosecutors bent on charging Cohen.  That neutral testimony or information, if proffered, which the skeptical prosecutors would find difficult to believe, would at best get him ice in this very cold wintertime.  Lastly, however unlikely, perhaps Martoma believed or still believes he is, or conceivably actually is, innocent.

In any case, it is not necessarily too late for Martoma to change his mind and get a benefit from cooperation.  The government would, I believe, be willing to alter favorably its sentencing recommendation if Martoma provides information or testimony leading to or supporting the prosecution of Cohen.  Indeed, I believe the government would ordinarily jump at a trade of evidence against Cohen for a recommendation of leniency (or less harshness), even if Martoma is now even less attractive as a witness than before he was convicted (although far more attractive than if he had testified as to his innocence).  However, the five-year statute of limitations for the July 2008 criminal activity in this matter has apparently run, and an indictment for substantive insider trading against Cohen for these trades is very probably time-barred. 

To be sure, federal prosecutors have attempted -- not always successfully (see United States v. Grimm; see here) -- imaginative solutions to statute of limitations problems.  And, if the government can prove that Cohen had committed even a minor insider trading conspiratorial act within the past five years (and there are other potential cooperators, like recently-convicted SAC manager Michael Steinberg, out there), the broad conspiracy statutes might well allow Martoma's potential testimony, however dated, to support a far-ranging conspiracy charge (since the statute of limitations for conspiracy is satisfied by a single overt act within the statutory period).  In such a case, Martoma may yet get some considerable benefit from cooperating, however belatedly it came about.

 (goldman)

February 11, 2014 in Current Affairs, Defense Counsel, Fraud, Insider Trading, News, Prosecutions, Prosecutors, Securities, Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, January 2, 2014

In the News & Around the Blogosphere

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

DOJ Transparency in Deferred Prosecution Agreements

Check out Mike Scarcella's BLT Blog item, Justice Dept. Sued Over Access to Non-Prosecution Agreement.  It is hard to believe that someone would have to file a lawsuit to obtain information about a non-prosecution agreement of a corporation.  One can understand the need to protect individuals from the sting of criminality when an agreement is reached to defer a prosecution or when an individual is being spared a prosecution as an alternative method to rehabilitate that individual.  But corporations are not afforded the same rights as individuals. The government is quick to note that corporations do not have the same rights as individuals when they are trying to obtain corporate documents. 

(esp)

December 3, 2013 in Deferred Prosecution Agreements, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, December 2, 2013

In the News & Around the Blogosphere

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Business Law Professors on Twitter

Professor Haskell Murray of Business Law Prof Blog put together a list of business law professors on Twitter. See here

(esp)

November 21, 2013 in News, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

In the News & Around the Blogosphere

Monday, November 11, 2013

Prosecuting Individuals & Overcriminalization

The NYTimes Room for Debate has an opinion discussion on prosecuting individuals in the corporate sphere.  My piece on overcriminalization is here.

(esp)

November 11, 2013 in News | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Daubert Hearing Produces Defense Win

The defendant was charged with two counts of allegedly mailing threatening communications (18 U.S.C. § 876) and two counts of intentionally conveying false and misleading information (18 U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1)). The defendant challenged the "government's introduction of testimony by a handwriting expert pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403."  In this case it was a report and expert testimony of a US Postal Service handwriting analyst.  The district court found that under the Daubert and Kumho standards "that the science or art underlying handwriting analysis falls well short of a reliability threshold when applied to hand printing analysis." This case was handled by Stephen J. Meyer  (Madison, Wisconsin).

(esp)

November 5, 2013 in Judicial Opinions, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, October 7, 2013

In the News & Around the Blogosphere

Sunday, October 6, 2013

A Stacked Deck? The SEC's Administrative Route

The New York Times' Gretchen Morgenson should be declared a national treasure. She continues to write about the financial crisis, and legal and regulatory issues related to the crisis, at a level far above most of her contemporaries. In today's New York Times she explains the administrative law process through which the SEC brings many of its enforcement actions against individuals. The Administrative Law Judges deciding the cases are SEC employees and appellate reversals are rare. Dodd-Frank expanded the kinds of cases that can be heard by the ALJs. All of this is known to the securities bar, but not to otherwise intelligent and informed lay readers, because hardly anyone ever writes about it. Morgenstern's story is here.

(wisenberg)

October 6, 2013 in Media, News, SEC, Securities | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, September 23, 2013

In the News & Around the Blogosphere

Friday, June 28, 2013

In the News & Around the Blogosphere

Amanda Bronstad, Nat L.J., Report: Bribery Prosecutions Revive Following 2012 Lag

Walter Pavlo, Forbes, The High Cost Of Mounting A White-Collar Criminal Defense

Covington & Burling, Senior DOJ Criminal Division Official Rejoins Covington (Daniel Suleiman)

Steptoe, Former DOJ Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein Joins Steptoe

Hunton & Williams, Hunton & Williams LLP Adds Former Federal Prosecutor Laura Marshall to
White Collar Team, Expands Global Litigation Practice

Bernie Madoff Exhibit Opens at Crime Museum here

Wiliiam Shepherd (Chair, ABA Criminal Justice Section; Hollad and Knight, partner), recently testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Task Force on Overcriminalization.  See here and here.

DOJ Press Release, Former Congressman Richard G. Renzi Convicted of Extortion and Bribery in
Illegal Federal Land Swap

(esp)

June 28, 2013 in News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, June 24, 2013

The Wall Street Journal Takes Aim At Comey

by: Solomon L. Wisenberg

In what should be a surprise to no one, the Wall Street Journal editorial page today launched an attack on James Comey, President Obama's nominee to be the next FBI Director. The primary offenses? Comey's objection to the Bush Administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping and Comey's appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald as Special Counsel to investigate the Valerie Plame leak. The editorial is here. More commentary on this in the next few days.

Coming soon: Professor Podgor's analysis of the Second Circuit's opinion afffirming Raj Rajaratnam's conviction for insider trading violations.

(wisenberg)

June 24, 2013 in Current Affairs, Legal Ethics, Media, News, Plame Investigation, Prosecutions, Prosecutors, Statutes | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Non-arrested Person Asserting Right to Silence Must Assert Constitution

by: Lawrence S. Goldman

In Salinas v. Texas, the Supreme Court in a bizarre, unrealistic 5-4 (or more precisely 3/2-4) decision announced yesterday seemed to rule that the pre-arrest silence of a person not in custody may be introduced at trial against that person and commented upon in summation by the prosecutor -- unless that person specifically invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.  Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, concurred only in the result, arguing that Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), which prohibited prosecutorial use of a defendant's invocation of silence at trial, should not be extended to pre-arrest situations.

According to Justice Alito and two others (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy), the individual had the responsibility to demonstrate at the time of his invocation of silence that it was based on his constitutional rights.  ("[I]t would have been a simple matter for him to say that he was not answering the officer's questions on Fifth Amendment grounds.")  Much like a trial lawyer, the defendant thus had the responsibility to make a proper contemporaneous record or forfeit any future legal claim.  ("A witness's constitutional right to refuse to answer questions depends on his reasons for doing so, and the courts need to know those reasons to evaluate the merits of a Fifth Amendment claim.")  Thus, the rules for making a record for a defendant represented by counsel in a courtroom have apparently been extended to an uncounseled layperson on the street or in a police station.

Salinas may affect the advice a white-collar lawyer (or any lawyer) might provide to a non-arrested client who the lawyers suspect might be approached by a law enforcement agent.  Instead of advising the client merely to decline to speak with the law enforcement official, the lawyer should also probably advise the client to explicitly state that his refusal is based on the Fifth (and perhaps also the Sixth) Amendment.  Indeed, perhaps white-collar lawyers should follow the lead of some other criminal lawyers and print the invocation of the Fifth (and Sixth) on the reverse side of their business cards.

(goldman) 

June 18, 2013 in News, Privileges | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Shargel to Join Winston & Strawn

by: Lawrence S. Goldman

Gerald Shargel, perhaps the pre-eminent criminal defense lawyer in New York City, has left his solo practice to join the 900-lawyer firm of Winston & Strawn.  Shargel's move is embelmatic of two trends:  the expansion of white-collar and not so white-collar criminal defense practices of large firms and the exodus of criminal practioners from solo or small partnership practices.

Mr. Shargel's transition is a boon to Winston & Strawn but a loss to the independent, private defense bar that is diminishing in number, income and quality.

(goldman)

June 12, 2013 in Defense Counsel, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, May 24, 2013

Did Lois Lerner Waive the Fifth?

by: Lawrence S. Goldman

Most witnesses with potential criminal exposure who are called to testify before Congressional hearings take the stand, with their lawyers behind them, and repeat the incantation "I respectfully decline to answer the question based on my Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination," or some variation.  Occasionally, a witness insists on testifying in spite of a danger that his answers might incriminate him or, if in conflict with other witnesses' statements or other evidence, might lead to a perjury or obstruction prosecution.  One notable example is Roger Clemens, who chose to testify and, although ultimately acquitted, was indicted and lost millions of dollars in legal fees and endorsements.

Lois Lerner, an embattled Internal Revenue Service official called to testify before a Congressional hearing earlier this week, tried to have her cake and eat it too.  She made a brief opening statement declaring her innocence ("I have not done anything wrong.  I have not broken any laws.  I have not violated any I.R.S. rules and regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other Congressional committee.").  She then invoked her constitutional right not to testify.  Committee Chair Daryl Issa (R-Calif.) and other Congressmen claimed that, by her opening declaration, she had waived her privilege and therefore was required to answer the Committee's questions.

Some lawyers have criticized Ms. Lerner's counsel, William Taylor III, one of the most highly-respected criminal defense lawyers in the nation, for allowing Ms. Lerner to make an opening statement, claiming that at the very least that she placed herself at risk of waiving her constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.  See here.  Although the area of waiver of privilege is indeed murky, with cases going in different directions, I believe Ms. Lerner did not waive her right to silence by her unspecific denials.  As Miranda v. Arizona itself says, "If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease."  384 U.S. 436, 473-4, fn. 44.

Nonetheless, courts sometimes bend over backwards to "punish" what appears to them as gamesmanship.  Many years ago, a New York City Congressman, Mario Biaggi, in response to a "leak" disclosing he had invoked his privilege in the grand jury and refused to answer questions, declared publicly that he had cooperated fully and answered all the jury's questions -- a statement which was far from true -- and that he had instructed his attorneys to seek release of his testimony to prove it.  His attorneys moved for disclosure of testimony, no doubt expecting the motion to be denied.  (The United States Attorney also so moved.)  The district court, however, as later affirmed by the Court of Appeals, held that Biaggi had waived the privilege and ordered the release of his entire transcript.  In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d 489 (2d Cir. 1973).

Even though I believe that ultimately it will not be determined (or probably even litigated) that Ms. Lerner waived her privilege against self-incrimination, I wonder whether her brief declaration of innocence -- by itself unlikely to persuade anyone -- was worth the risk, however slight.  My guess -- pure guess -- is that the decision to allow her to make her brief opening statement was a compromise made between a careful lawyer and a client, like many I have represented, who adamantly desired to testify.  Of course, professional discretion would prevent Mr. Taylor from shifting any blame.

(goldman)

May 24, 2013 in Congress, Contempt, Current Affairs, Defense Counsel, News, Privileges | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

In the News & Around the Blogosphere

Monday, April 22, 2013

Will the "Public Safety Emergency Exception" Apply in White-Collar Cases?

by: Lawrence S. Goldman

The government decision to delay Miranda warnings, and also the first appearance before a judge and the assignment of counsel, for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving alleged Boston Marathon bomber, was a tactical one, no doubt based largely on an evaluation that any admission Tsarnaev makes is unnecessary to a government case (eyewitnesses, an admission, videotapes, possession of explosives, flight, etc.) which appears to be overwhelming.

The broad "public safety emergency exception" which the government asserts is a questionable Department of Justice attempt to expand the narrow exception announced in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).  The government's aggressive stance is based in part on a belief that Miranda does not prescribe a procedural requirement for police questioning, but is only a prerequisite for the admissibility at trial of statements made by a defendant.  Under such reasoning, government agents are free to violate the dictates of Miranda (and perhaps other constitutional rights) with no harm to their case except a return to the status quo ante.

Aggressive law enforcement tactics against criminal suspects accused of particular heinous crimes, such as terrorism, murder, kidnapping and large-scale drug dealing, gradually work their way into the general law enforcement toolbox.  Tactics used against drug dealers and organized crime figures, such as extensive electronic surveillance, undercover agents, forfeiture of assets and disallowance of attorneys' fees, and exceedingly high bail requests, for instance, are no longer uncommon in white collar cases.

I wonder whether the "public safety emergency exception" is so far off.  If it is acceptable under this exception to allow the government to disregard Miranda and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a)(1)(A) (requiring agents to bring one arrested before a court "without necessary delay") in order ostensibly to prevent future terrorist crimes, will it also become acceptable to detain for 48 hours and question without Miranda warnings, for instance, those who have provided inside information about unknown persons to whom they might have provided such information in order to deter imminent or future insider trading or  those who have hacked computers about accomplices or others who might commit imminent or future computer crimes?

(goldman)

April 22, 2013 in Computer Crime, Current Affairs, Insider Trading, News, Privileges | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)