Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Will the “Blame the Man” Claim Help?

Danielle Chiesi, the Wall Street blond bombshell who gave new meaning to the term “insider trading” by extracting from sexual partners confidential information which she relayed to convicted inside traders Raj Rajaratnam and Mark Kurland, is reportedly seeking a downward variance from a Sentencing Guideline range of 37-46 months, in part because her wrongdoing resulted from her “toxic” sexual relationship with Mr. Kurland. Ms. Chiesi’s sentencing memorandum highlights a letter from her current boyfriend which contends that Mr. Kurland, her twenty-year lover, exploited her and turned her into his “virtual servant.” Ms. Chiesi seeks to be sentenced to no more than the 27-month term that had been imposed upon Mr. Kurland.

Ironically, one of Ms. Chiesi’s lovers/sources, former IBM executive Robert Moffatt, now serving a six-month sentence for providing confidential information to Ms. Chiesi, at sentencing blamed Ms. Chiesi for manipulating him.

It will be interesting to see whether this “blame the man” explanation strikes a responsive chord with sentencing Judge Richard J. Holwell. Historically, women have received more lenient sentences than men for similar conduct, and the “blame the man” defense frequently worked at sentencing. However, that record was largely compiled with a male-dominated judiciary where some might have condescendingly viewed women as the “weaker sex.” Given changing societal and judicial views (and non-discriminatory mandatory sentences and sentencing guidelines), I suspect that differential has diminished considerably.


Insider Trading, Sentencing | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Will the “Blame the Man” Claim Help?:


In a case, where it is clear that this woman did NOT think it was a crime of significance. Nor was she aware of any prison time factors when the crime was committed (hence it cannot be argued that she did the crimes because she believed she would get probation).

2 years, vs, 3 or 5 - is all pointless.

She has a record, she is not a risk to society. IBM guy was given 6 months. Why give her (and cost all of us) years. 2 months (to scare her hopefully enough of the reality) and probation with suspended. Perfectly satisfactory in this case.

The whole mandatory sentencing issue is absurd. You cannot have absolutes, in a system that is supposed to serve justice - EQUITABLY!

Posted by: laser haas | Jun 17, 2011 10:22:35 AM

Post a comment