Slashdot Mirror


Former Goldman Sachs Programmer Arrested and Charged Again For Code Theft

hypnosec writes with news that Sergey Aleynikov, once a programmer for Goldman Sachs, has been arrested and charged again for stealing code from his employer in 2009. Aleynikov was originally charged for the crime in 2009. He was convicted in 2010 and sentenced to 97 months in prison, but an appeals court overturned the verdict, saying the corporate espionage laws were misapplied. Manhattan District Attorney Cryus Vance said, "This code is so highly confidential that it is known in the industry as the firm's 'secret sauce.' Employees who exploit their access to sensitive information should expect to face criminal prosecution in New York State in appropriate cases." The Fifth Amendment's "double jeopardy" clause is unlikely to stop this case because it's within a different jurisdiction — the earlier trial was in federal court, and this one is in New York State court.

176 comments

  1. This come to mind... by bigredradio · · Score: 1

    If you play with fire, you are gonna get burned - Vincent Vega

    1. Re:This come to mind... by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What he should have done was follow the lead of Goldman Sacks executives. Then he wouldn't be prosecuted for anything.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:This come to mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What he should have done is put it in bittorrent in an encrypted file, and blurted the word out in the trial.

    3. Re:This come to mind... by pla · · Score: 3, Informative

      What he should have done was follow the lead of Goldman Sacks executives. Then he wouldn't be prosecuted for anything.

      But... How many useless Federal Reserve Chairmen can we have at a time, though?

      As an interesting side-note, in looking up one detail of what I wanted to post here, I noticed that the Wikipedia entries on Bernanke and Goldman both curiously (one might even say "conspicuously") fail to make any mention of his acting as their CEO prior to handing them a juicy government bailout. Looks like someone wants to do some "oops I fucked the country" damage control... ;)

    4. Re:This come to mind... by Kergan · · Score: 4, Informative

      I noticed that the Wikipedia entries on Bernanke and Goldman both curiously (one might even say "conspicuously") fail to make any mention of his acting as their CEO prior to handing them a juicy government bailout.

      I assume you're confusing Paulson and Bernanke. The former (then at the Treasury) was a former GS CEO; the latter was, to the best of my knowledge anyway, a carrier academic. (Who, it might be suggested, doesn't have the slightest clue of how a real business operates as a result.)

    5. Re:This come to mind... by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, yep. You have it right. Mixed up my conflicts of interest.

      Damn, gotta go wipe that egg off my face now... :)

    6. Re:This come to mind... by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Funny
      Incidentally, here's the secret, proprietary code he stole:

      10 SCREW CUSTOMER
      20 MAKE PROFIT
      30 GOTO 10

    7. Re:This come to mind... by ameoba · · Score: 1

      Very Johnny Mnemonic.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    8. Re:This come to mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And where would he get the cash stuffed envelopes to deliver to the right people to get his problem to go away?

    9. Re:This come to mind... by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 4, Funny

      pretty basic, no?

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    10. Re:This come to mind... by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      a carrier academic

      I'll try to be intrepid and forrestal any silly comments, though it might be a little leyte and I fear I might not end up victorious. Soryu about that.

      Are you saying he's expert on naval aviation?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. Finally, justice in New York by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We can't have people robbing and stealing with impunity. It's time someone from the finance industry is punished with extreme prejudice. /troll

  3. Out of his mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So even if he is the original author of the software, (he carries the details and inspiration in his head), and the software came out of his mind, he is still a criminal for telling/selling his idea to someone else.

    1. Re:Out of his mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He should just threaten to release the code into the wild if they try to follow through again. After all, they will try to pin a huge civil liability suit after the criminal one, so he's facing XX years in prison and bankruptcy. He has nothing to lose by letting *everyone* see behind the curtain if they keep on this path.

      Not saying he's being persecuted but if he's the originator of the code then he's entitled to leverage *his* knowledge after leaving the company unless they are willing to fairly compensate him to sit on the sidelines.

    2. Re:Out of his mind by Thorodin · · Score: 1

      Not if he signed a contract that anything he developed while in GS employ belongs to GS (as long as they can show he developed it on their time). I'm sure there's a ton of programmers on /. that have to sign something like that.

    3. Re:Out of his mind by Talderas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is this not blackmail?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    4. Re:Out of his mind by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How is this not blackmail?

      what the AC proposed as what he should have done is indeed blackmail.
      But, would anything else work with Goldman Sachs?

      The secret sauce isn't probably that secret even, it's just that if it was out in the wild it would be a liability - you see, on paper it's valued on their sheets in millions if not in hundreds of millions as an asset.. that they can then borrow money against.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Out of his mind by dmorris68 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So even if he is the original author of the software, (he carries the details and inspiration in his head), and the software came out of his mind, he is still a criminal for telling/selling his idea to someone else.

      In some circumstances, absolutely.

      Most software developers sign agreements that stipulate that any software or other intellectual property created for the company and on company time belongs to the company, not the developer. Some even go as far as to take ownership of anything you develop *even on your own time.* Many employers will also make you sign a non-compete agreement that basically says when you leave the company, you will not engage in competitive behavior against the company, which could also be construed as developing a similar algorithm for a competitor, at least within a specified period of time.

      In my career as a developer I've signed a number of these types of agreements, and just for "ordinary" corporate jobs. Given the highly competitive and secretive financial industry and the money at stake, it wouldn't surprise me if their agreements are far more complex and specific. Especially due to the very high degree of specialization required in financial services programming, particularly in trading software where milliseconds can mean a difference between millions of dollars, they tend to be pretty protective of their IP (and thus why those programmers make hundreds of thousands a year in salary, way beyond your garden-variety corporate developers).

      Now of course a developer with a specialized skillset and experience, barring a non-compete agreement or a patent that would specifically prohibit it, could certainly go to work for another company and re-create a similar algorithm from scratch, and it would be very difficult to litigate against as long as it's based upon memory/experience and not by taking the actual source code with him. It would largely hinge on whether the concept was generic or common across the industry, or whether it was a unique and highly-specific concept that had never existed outside the original company, and then suddenly shows up in a pretty obvious way at a competitor which just happened to recently hire your former employee.

    6. Re:Out of his mind by lightknight · · Score: 2

      Nonsense. His previous employers own the implementation that they paid for, they do not own the idea itself.

      Were such a thing possible, web developers would be up to their eyes in lawsuits, as every implementation of a website after the first one would be grounds for a case.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    7. Re:Out of his mind by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sure any implementation he developed at GS, while using company resources, belongs to GS. However, the courts frown on the idea of non-competes or contracts which clauses that banish a person from their chosen field should they leave their current employer. It would be as asking a mason or carpenter to never build a stone archway or wooden table again -> in such cases, those contracts only hold up if an employer is willing to offer (equal or greater to their current salary / benefits) consideration for the time spent not working.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    8. Re:Out of his mind by lightknight · · Score: 1

      *Attempt* to take ownership of the things you developed on your own time.

      As for going to another employer, in theory, so long as it is a different (enough) implementation of the same algorithm, intellectual property laws say it is good to go.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    9. Re:Out of his mind by M8e · · Score: 1

      Blackmail + lawyers = negotiation

    10. Re:Out of his mind by Nitewing98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "So even if he is the original author of the software, (he carries the details and inspiration in his head), and the software came out of his mind, he is still a criminal for telling/selling his idea to someone else."

      Yep. As long as he was being paid by GS to write that code, it belongs to them. I know that most programmers don't like this idea, but that's the way IP works in this world. I think it sucks too. But from a business perspective, how else do they "get an edge" on their competitors, if they have the same software?

      --

      Nitewing '98

      Everything works...in theory.

    11. Re:Out of his mind by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      The big threat with specialized workers moving to a competitor isn't really in re-creating a system created at the prior place of employment... hopefully they're on the ball enough that some other coder has already improved upon the original design by the time the developer gets up to speed at the new location.

      The big threat is that the developer also knows the previous employer's weaknesses, and can exploit those when starting from scratch on a new system. This means that if they happen to know a specific transaction takes place at a specific time of day that is significantly more expensive than usual, causing milliseconds of delay, the competitor's system can be designed to be able to stuff an unusually large number of transactions into that window, thus effectively transferring millions in assets from the old company to the new one.

    12. Re:Out of his mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should he care if he's going to blackmail them in a legal or illegal fashion? They are destroying his life...any criminal lawsuit is so costly it will bankrupt most individuals, and they are trying to do another run at him. Obviously if they want to bring the full weight of their powers to bear on him he needs to use *all* of his faculties and facilities as well. It's either brinksmanship or mutually assured destruction.

    13. Re:Out of his mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Patently false.

    14. Re:Out of his mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then obviously, if he wants to damage their misappropriated business, or have any effect at all other than a legal history echo 30 years from now, he needs to publish his source code under an open license :) Let the rest of us see what the fuck they do. It's really hard to defend bullshit when the source code is open, right?

    15. Re:Out of his mind by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Yep. As long as he was being paid by GS to write that code, it belongs to them. I know that most programmers don't like this idea, but that's the way IP works in this world. I think it sucks too. But from a business perspective, how else do they "get an edge" on their competitors, if they have the same software?

      I consider myself relatively extreme in terms of what I think copyright laws should be - but surely if someone pays you to write code for them, that code is theirs. If you write something for someone, and get paid as you were supposed to, how can you claim the copyright is yours?

      The way copyright works here doesn't suck, IMO. If employees could claim copyright on code they'd done within a company, they'd be able to withdraw that code when they leave the company, which would be massively counterproductive for everyone else within the company trying to clean up the mess. And this would happen every time an employee moved and asserted their copyright.

      Not having copyright on what you are paid to write on company time does not suck.

    16. Re:Out of his mind by dmorris68 · · Score: 1

      *Attempt* to take ownership of the things you developed on your own time.

      IANAL and it may vary by jurisdiction and contract interpretation by the court in question, but they will typically succeed if you willingly signed over your rights to any personal IP when you became employed, and it can be proven the development was done during the time of employment. Some companies are pretty ridiculous about this. The first time I ran into this, funny enough, was in college in the mid-80's when I applied at Radio Shack in the local mall. I don't know if their policy is still the same, but during the interview the store manager asked me what I did for hobbies and such. I told him that I liked to code, had published a couple of articles in programming journals, and tinkered with electronics and EEPROM programming. He immediately told me that if they hired me, I would have to sign over all rights to anything I created or developed on my time. The job was just floor sales, it wasn't even a development gig! Needless to say, I passed.

      As for going to another employer, in theory, so long as it is a different (enough) implementation of the same algorithm, intellectual property laws say it is good to go.

      Well yes, which is what I basically said in my last paragraph. If you take source code with you, then it's not a substantially different implementation. And just rewritten from scratch is not necessarily enough -- most programmers who've written the same algorithm multiple times can rewrite it from scratch and each iteration will be nearly verbatim. If such code is ever subpoenaed in a legal action and determined to be substantially similar (assuming again we're talking about a significantly unique or complex algorithm, obviously not something simple and widely-known like a quicksort or a Fisher-Yates shuffle), then there could be a liability.

    17. Re:Out of his mind by Nitewing98 · · Score: 1

      Valid point. I guess my problem with computer code as IP is: At what point does something become too trivial to matter? A shorter method, a better-laid out object, entire modules, etc. Any computer language has a finite number of combinations (within a given length) that are valid code. If you and I write the same method, who decides if you wrote it first or I did?

      Also, to be fair, I'm coming at this from the standpoint of a math major, not a business major. From a math standpoint, once a routine is written and it works in the most efficient manner, it should never have to be written again. For me to argue that it's mine when you have the same code only forces you to rewrite in a less-efficient way.

      --

      Nitewing '98

      Everything works...in theory.

    18. Re:Out of his mind by Thorodin · · Score: 1

      Totally agree on your non-compete comment. Most don't hold up. However, they still can work. I'll show you: There is a company called Epic. They are a hospital information system (HIS) vendor. Now, HIS' are very complex creatures needing specialized training to install. So, there are a lot of companies that do consulting: helping to configure\setup the HIS for that particular hospital, etc. even though Epic consultants do the same on initial sale\setup. Back to Epic: if you leave, you cannot take another position at any company that consults or works on Epic for, iirc, 18 months. This clause is probably pretty unenforceable in a court of law. HOWEVER, no consultant company who specializes in Epic is going to hire you for the time period. Simply for the reason they don't want to PO the powers that be at Epic. So, a non-compete may be unenforceable but that doesn't mean it can't be effective.

    19. Re:Out of his mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all bring knowledge, skills, and experience into a job. We all bring knowledge, skills, and experience out of a job. Stealing a specific piece of code that someone else owns is, and should be, criminal. Using your knowledge, skills, and experience to independently develop a piece of code that fills the same requirements is NOT, and should NOT be criminal.

      How many of us would get a new job if we didn't have our knowledge, skills, and experience? How many employers would hire a candidate who didn't possess knowledge, skills, and experience?

  4. I'll Take.... by Eldragon · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I'll take Undermining the Bill of Rights for $500 Alex"

    1. Re:I'll Take.... by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

      Alas, the Double Jeopardy Clause, which sure seems like it would apply here, does not because the conviction was overturned on appeal rather than acquitted by the trial court. Of course, the real point is clear enough: Mess with Goldman Sachs, and they will ruin your life.

      And in other news, Goldman Sachs is not going to be investigated for further crimes, like, oh, I don't know, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of fraud.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:I'll Take.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "I'll take Undermining the Bill of Rights for $500 Alex"

      I don't think so. However, perhaps the defense is allowed to ask the following question during Voir Dire:

      "Did you view any news coverage of the federal prosecution of my client for the exact same offense? If so, did you view any news coverage of a federal appellate judge throwing out the charges on the ground that the law did not apply in this case?"

      We don't want a biased jury, after all.

    3. Re:I'll Take.... by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Nothing is undermined. It is routine for people to be charged twice by two different governments. For example in the Paypal litigation they were charged by ~35 Member States plus the U.S. DOJ. Same thing happened with Toyota which was found guilt-free by the U.S. government but is still being charged by State governments (for failing to honor engine warranties when they died at just 15-25,000 miles).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:I'll Take.... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      Litigation is civil. Double jeopardy is for criminal cases--prosecution.

    5. Re:I'll Take.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As TFS states, double jeopardy doesn't apply here because it's a different law. You can't be tried for the same law twice for the same actions, but there's no reason you can't be tried for different laws for the same actions. In fact, the trials could have even been concurrent (legally, not practically).

      Let's say you are a hired hitman, so somebody pays you to murder someone. They try you for murder, but the jury returns a not guilty verdict. They can't come back and try you again for murder, but they can argue that you didn't report your earnings from the hit and try you for tax evasion.

      In this case, the two jurisdictions effectively have different laws so there's no problem putting him on trial again.

      dom

    6. Re:I'll Take.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing is undermined. It is routine

      I wonder if that same argument could be used to justify the TSA...

    7. Re:I'll Take.... by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep, there are so many laws nowadays even the lawyers aren't sure any more. So they just wing it. If the man wants you in jail, he has the time and resources to keep this shit up until you are either in jail or put a bullet in your own head. Welcome to the real world. And people look at me funny when I say I am anti-government. And please don't give me this republican/democrat/liberal/conservative bullshit. All that means is you're sitting on a different turd, but you're still in the septic tank.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:I'll Take.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is still common. If you rob a bank you can be charged for doing so by the feds and also be charged with armed robbery by the state for the same crime.

    9. Re:I'll Take.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's why as soon as you get past the appeal you should automatically move to a non-extradition country and live under an alias if at all possible. Our government is so corrupt at this point that you really have no choice but to cover your ass even after you are set free.

    10. Re:I'll Take.... by tmosley · · Score: 2

      Two charges isn't double jeopardy. Bing acquitted, or having your conviction overturned, then being charged for the same thing again IS.

      But laws don't apply to the authorities in a police state.

    11. Re:I'll Take.... by damien_kane · · Score: 2

      Bing acquitted

      Bing should never be acquitted

    12. Re:I'll Take.... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes. It *WAS* undermined, now it has fully collapsed.

    13. Re:I'll Take.... by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      Alas, the Double Jeopardy Clause, which sure seems like it would apply here, does not because the conviction was overturned on appeal rather than acquitted by the trial court.

      That would be true if it was the federal government that wanted to re-try him. However, in this case, the reason double jeopardy doesn't apply is because of the dual sovereignty doctrine – the state prosecution is considered legally separate from the federal prosecution. It's another weird bit of legacy code from the US's obsolete federal system, which should have died at Appomatox in 1865.

    14. Re:I'll Take.... by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would be true if it was the federal government that wanted to re-try him. However, in this case, the reason double jeopardy doesn't apply is because of the dual sovereignty doctrine

      I doubt that the framers of the constitition intended the double jeopardy clause to work this way.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    15. Re:I'll Take.... by pla · · Score: 5, Funny

      that's why as soon as you get past the appeal you should automatically move to a non-extradition country

      That just makes the paperwork to approve the drone strike so much easier for them, Terrorist.

    16. Re:I'll Take.... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      and educate me on the US system but isn't there civil court then too? like with oj.

      soo.... what's the point of double jeopardy that's supposedly a big deal if it's in reality triple-sueability?

      in the rest of the world if you find new evidence you can usually prosecute again

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    17. Re:I'll Take.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Double jeopardy may not apply but it should. Far too many people are punished, in effect, without being convicted or even put on trial. Just the term person of interest can ruin a person's life, cause loss of income, break families and maybe even be worse in its effects that going to prison. Worse yet Florida home owners have even been denied public defenders unless they sign over their homes to lawyers or get a relative to buy the home.
                            Wealth and justice should not have any relationship at all and frankly the rich are far less likely to be punished.

    18. Re:I'll Take.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two charges isn't double jeopardy.

      Two different charges, sure. But being charged twice for the same crime, well, unless I am misreading it, I see nothing which says "only applies if acquitted the first time".

    19. Re:I'll Take.... by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>the US's obsolete federal system, which should have died at Appomatox in 1865

      No it shouldn't. Didn't you study "checks and balances" in school? Or even look at how the EU operates? (Also a federal system.) The lower-level member states of the union act as a check against the central authority. It is a balance that helps curb the tyranny that history shows is inevitable when all the land falls under one single authority.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    20. Re:I'll Take.... by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      It is an interesting situation.

      IIRC the State of Oklahoma going to use this tactic against Timothy McVeigh (---sucks cocks in Hell), but there was no need since the federal court imposed the death penalty.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    21. Re:I'll Take.... by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Both paypal and toyota were/are involved in criminal prosecution. Paypal had broken banking laws, and Toyota violated consumer protection laws that oblige them to honor the advertised warranty.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    22. Re:I'll Take.... by Local+ID10T · · Score: 2

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment

      The constitutional prohibition against ‘double jeopardy’ was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. . . . The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo–American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.

      Throughout most of its history, this clause was binding only against the Federal Government. In Palko v. Connecticut, the Court rejected an argument that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated all the provisions of the first eight Amendments as limitations on the States and enunciated the due process theory under which most of those Amendments do now apply to the States. Some guarantees in the Bill of Rights, Justice Cardozo wrote, were so fundamental that they are “of the very essence of the scheme of ordered liberty” and “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” But the double jeopardy clause, like many other procedural rights of defendants, was not so fundamental; it could be absent and fair trials could still be had. Of course, a defendant’s due process rights, absent double jeopardy consideration per se,-might be violated if the State “creat[ed] a hardship so acute and shocking as to be unendurable,” but that was not the case in Palko. In Benton v. Maryland, however, the Court concluded “that the double jeopardy prohibition . . . represents a fundamental ideal in our constitutional heritage. . . . Once it is decided that a particular Bill of Rights guarantee is ‘fundamental to the American scheme of justice,’ . . . the same constitutional standards apply against both the State and Federal Governments.” Therefore, the double jeopardy limitation now applies to both federal and state governments and state rules on double jeopardy, with regard to such matters as when jeopardy attaches, must be considered in the light of federal standards.

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/amdt5afrag2_user.html#fnb49

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    23. Re:I'll Take.... by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      No it shouldn't. Didn't you study "checks and balances" in school?

      You're talking to someone with a Bachelor's in Political Science. Of course I am aware of the standard civics-textbook account. I just don't buy it, and it was my studies that led me to the conclusion I stated above. Specifically, the writings of Sanford Levinson and Robert Dahl (see also this book review by Hendrik Hertzberg) led me to agree with those authors that the Constitution and the federal system it sets up are deeply flawed in many ways and need to be re-thought from the ground up.

    24. Re:I'll Take.... by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Alas, the Double Jeopardy Clause, which sure seems like it would apply here, does not because the conviction was overturned on appeal rather than acquitted by the trial court.

      I don't see that exception in the Constitution anywhere.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    25. Re:I'll Take.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although, after posting this, I suppose, for example, Virginia and Maryland both charging someone for the same murder should not count as double jeopardy, as long as it is a state law and not a federal law the person is being charged with.

      (captcha: jeopardy)

    26. Re:I'll Take.... by shentino · · Score: 1

      Res judicata functions as double jeopardy for civil cases.

    27. Re:I'll Take.... by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Negative, ghost rider. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to actions brought by separate sovereigns. The federal government and the state are two entities and they can each bring charges without being precluded by the other's actions.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    28. Re:I'll Take.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theoretically, the argument that the case is being tried in the wrong jurisdiction should work in one of the two venues.

    29. Re:I'll Take.... by Stormin · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt the judge would approve that as a Voir Dire question, although it would certainly be funny.

      Seriously thought, this guy crossed Goldman. Nobody does that and lives. What the hell was he thinking?

    30. Re:I'll Take.... by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Well I agree the Constitution has flaws (and that's why it has been amended multiple times), but don't agree we should abandon federalism and put all the power into a single government. As I said, that is the road to tyranny and LESS democracy.

      Power should be as close the people represented as possible, in the State government just a few miles away & your representative just down the street or on the next block so you can talk to him. NOT 1500 miles away in some central capitol where the people's voice is ignored & the representative doesn't even live in his home state anymore. (Sure he has a home address but he doesn't actually live there.) There should be LESS power concentrated in the central U.S. or EU government, and more power at the state level. i.e. More federalism & division of power, not less.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    31. Re:I'll Take.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but don't agree we should abandon federalism and put all the power into a single government. As I said, that is the road to tyranny and LESS democracy.

      Question, what did you think JDG1980 meant when they said that the US's federal system "should have died at Appomatox in 1865"? Because I have the feeling that we are both interpreting JDG1980's words differently (and that you have the wrong interpretation).

      The year of 1865 was the year that the US Civil War ended. And the Battle of Appomattox Court House was the final engagement of General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia before they surrendered to the Union. Now what do you think JDG1980 was trying to imply should have happened? Well, what I think they are implying is that they think that that should have been the final engagement where afterwards the Union surrendered to the Confederacy. I believe JDG1980 is saying that the Federal government should have less power than it does now, not more, as you are attempting to accuse them of saying.

      But don't feel too bad for misunderstanding them. I at first misread "Appomattox" as "approximately" (although given the year 1865, I did still figure they were talking about the US Civil War).

    32. Re:I'll Take.... by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Which I suppose raises the question: are there any non-extradition countries that also manage to maintain sovereignty over their airspace?

  5. Trade Secret laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't they apply theft of trade secret laws? or does that fall under the corporate espionage umbrella?

  6. double this by alphatel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Feds walk away from prosecuting Goldman, SEC misses Madoff, but this guy needs to be prosecuted - twice!

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:double this by llebegue · · Score: 2

      Easier to strike the small fish than the big ones

    2. Re:double this by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      This is by design.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    3. Re:double this by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sure, SEC 'missed' Madoff. They were only warned about him for almost a decade.

      SEC was warned about NIA multiple times as well, but you see, NIA's clients don't matter and Madoff was a 'respected' individual, used to have strong ties in government.

      The gov't doesn't care about people it also doesn't look into its own people, the gov't is there to steal money from people, companies who do legitimate business. It's a racket, nothing more. If you are doing legitimate business - you are a target. You have a legitimate business, legitimate clients, real earnings, you are satisfying market demand - you are a target.

      You are stealing? Who gives a shit, you can't be used to make consistent profits from, you aren't buying licenses, you aren't going to pay untold amounts of money because of all the audits, the compliance costs, nobody cares about you.

      Here is a thing: you can steal, just don't steal too little, like this guy in the story. You can run a pump and dump scam, SEC doesn't care, it's not there to do anything about it, this should be obvious by now. Enron, Madoff and such (NIA is small potatoes, only maybe 10-20 million has been stolen so far).

      SEC, FINRA... they exist to prevent competition to the banks and large investment firms, they don't exist to prevent fraud, don't be mistaken thinking that.

    4. Re:double this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Feds walk away from prosecuting Goldman, SEC misses Madoff, but this guy needs to be prosecuted - twice!

      That's the way it works in our plutocracy. The big fish get away scot free with the little guys get it up the ass.

      Run up billions of dollars in debt and can't pay it back? The government steps in, covers it, pay yourself a big bonus, and everyone pats you on the back for being a financial whiz and a "job creator".

      In the meantime, a peon who does the right thing and gets educated and pays with student loans is stuck with them for life unless he pays them back - no free ride like the plutocrats get. And to add insult to injury, you have some very ignorant people who think that only folks who majored in liberal or fine arts have that problem and that they deserved what they got - not true, BTW, folks with nursing, accounting, CS and engineering degrees are also having horrible times. Or they accuse those folks of going to expensive private schools - which isn't always true either considering state schools are quite pricey themselves.

      And to anyone who posts that they worked 2 jobs, held a 3.0+ GPA and graduated in 4 years with a CS or engineering degree without any debt, I call bullshit. I will never beleive that.

      Anyone who defends this system is either in on it or has this illusion that they can with enough "hard work", some "risk taking" and some "brains" that they to can join the 1%; you'll have a better luck winning the lottery.

    5. Re:double this by sycodon · · Score: 2

      Easier to strike the small fish than the big ones with connections in the White House and the Justice Department.

      Fixed.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    6. Re:double this by Thorodin · · Score: 1

      I have an Associates degree in CS and I'm doing okay. In fact, those with nursing degrees and a good grasp of computers are really doing okay due to Meaningful Use (part of the ARRA act. In fact, one of our clinical analysts was offered a job by a consultant (she gets about one call a week on average) with M-Th travel and a six figure salary. Due some research before posting blanket statements.

    7. Re:double this by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from people who mattered. As long as you're stealing from poor people, it's A-ok.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    8. Re:double this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read up on your civics, folks: this is Federalism at work. ("Dual sovereigns")

      If you're accused of breaking a Federal law and by the same conduct have also violated a state statute, the 5th amendment double jeopardy clause does not apply to the state prosecution, and you can generally still be charged and convicted at the state level. Interestingly, there are situations where the reverse is not true by statute or by the Petite policy outlined in the US attorney's manual.

      Moral of the story: This is a NY state issue, and state politicians^W prosecutors will do what makes them look good.

    9. Re:double this by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but realise that even then Madoff wasn't on SEC radar, even though he was stealing from the wealthier individuals. In fact his fund was seen as something exclusive, people didn't dare to pull money out because they thought they wouldn't be able to get back in.

      One interesting thing is that he never provided his clients with an online interface to check their balances, I wonder why not? He could have faked the transactions there, he could have faked their balance information and as long as they saw a good consistent return, they wouldn't have ever tried to pull the money out. Why? They didn't need the money to spend it, they needed a good investment opportunity, and Madoff was giving them an impression of a good return. Sometimes somebody needed the money for whatever reason and they could always cash out, as long as it wasn't everybody at the same time, as long as there were new people getting into it.

      That's a private ponzi scheme. Governments run this type of scheme constantly with pension funds, SS and Medicare are a good example of this same thing.

      You THINK you have something, in reality it's all bonds - just IOUs. Think about this: there is no difference to the government whether there are bonds in the so called SS 'fund' or there are no bonds there, because in order to make payments they have to sell bonds anyway. There is no material difference in how the payments are funded, now that the taxes don't cover the payouts. The thing is bankrupt, it's broke and there is no difference whether the bonds are IN the so called 'fund' or not, there is no difference as to how the money is paid out.

      So now think about this: government takes your payroll tax (both, your part and the part that the employer pays if you are an employee) and it spends all of it, it's not invested in anything as it could have been with real insurance or if you just managed your money yourself. You are presented with some statement that says: here is what you will get eventually IF you live to that age of 65 or whatever (and the age is going to be raised obviously).

      WHAT IF YOU DIE?

      If you had that money invested all on your own, your family would have that money. If you are dead, they are not going to see a cent of it. It's your money and now it's gone.

      Now how about this: in 1971 one ounce of gold was 35 bucks, today it's 1615 or something like that, so if you had your own money invested with a strategy of 25% stocks, 25% bonds, 25% gold, 25% cash, then even just on GOLD ALONE you are WAY AHEAD of anything that the government promises to give you, and you ACTUALLY HAVE IT as opposed to not having it.

      SS is a huge scam, much bigger than Madoff's scam, and who is running it? Right.

    10. Re:double this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I graduated in 4 years with dual B.S. degrees in electrical and computer engineering. I did work two part time jobs, graduated with a 3.4 GPA and approximately $20K in debt ($120K total expenses, but private merit based scholarships, grants and college work benefits covered most the expense). 9 years after graduating, I have paid off all of my student loans, outright own my $50K car and have no credit card debt.

      Don't shit on my parade just because it didn't work out for you. I may not be in the 1%, but I am definitely in the 5%.

    11. Re:double this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So we should do away with safety nets? From your posting history, it seems that you're one of the "GUBMENT TUK ME MONEYS" types. It also appears from this post, and from many in your past, that you also firmly believe in doing for yourself, and fuck the rest of them, correct? Would you rather have a private company take the money and fuck you over for the profit of two people, or the government take it and fuck you over for the benefit of millions?

      Selfishness, no matter how it's labeled, is always selfishness.

    12. Re:double this by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      So we should do away with safety nets?

      - they are nets, alright, but they have nothing to do with safety. They are the nets that are designed to hold you down, prevent you from being able to have your own independent wealth, from investing, they are the nets designed to steal from you.

      you also firmly believe in doing for yourself, and fuck the rest of them, correct?

      - see, gov't education didn't help you to develop logic. Doing it for yourself - yes, absolutely.

      'fuck the rest of them'? - this does not follow. Everybody should be doing it for themselves, and that's how the economy flourishes, that's how everybody wins. That's how the stuff gets cheaper, that's how there are more choices, that's how there are more products, people start more businesses, save more, invest more. That's how the jobs are really created, because that's how productivity is increased.

      That's how people have more money and people are a charitable bunch (unfortunately from my perspective anyway, because that's the weapon used against them in groups, to force them into this gov't violence driven 'charity', which is no charity at all).

      Would you rather have a private company take the money and fuck you over for the profit of two people, or the government take it and fuck you over for the benefit of millions?

      - more proof complete failure of gov't 'education' system. Those are not the choices.

      I rather have everybody who wants to try running their companies, doing their own business and I rather have no government meddling with any business, money, no income taxes obviously, no inflation via printing.

      I don't want to be 'fucked' for the benefit of millions at all. In a private system, in a free market I don't get fucked more than I have to, because if I do something stupid and lose money, I won't do it again. So I can learn and move on, but with the government fucking me for the benefit of whoever, I have to devise very complex and time and energy consuming schemes to avoid being fucked and I still end up living in a society that is very much sick economically speaking, because the gov't is there, fucking everybody.

      Selfishness, no matter how it's labeled, is always selfishness.

      - I prefer selfishness to theft 100% of the time, and gov't is theft. It's theft of freedoms, it's theft of life.

      Freedom to live your life without being harassed, without having the outcome of your work stolen.

      Freedom to live your life without being accused and prosecuted for things that are completely none of anybody's business, but gov't makes it its business.

      Freedom from being part of a system that discriminates and kills people because they are powerless.

      What millions are you talking about? All I see is millions of poor and murdered people, all poor and all murdered by the governments of the world. Or is it selfish not to want to have wars?

      Or is it selfish to allow people to live their lives as they want to and not to be harassed by the powers above them, because gov't IS power, it's all power, it's all threat of violence.

      The best thing to do for an individual, the most selfish thing to do for an individual in this system is to be part of the government - to harass others.

      The least selfish thing is to run your own business to make products that people want to trade with you for.

      I choose the latter, not the former.

    13. Re:double this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any CS graduate that cannot get a job that will pay off his or her student loans in ~5 years is either a) incompetent, b) unwilling to move to where the jobs are (and there are a metric shit ton of jobs right now.)

      The job market is so ridiculously good for developers that my employer recently decided to give everyone and extra 20% bonus (payable next year) and an incentive stock plan (RSU, so no strike price...also payable next year) just so that they wouldn't keep losing people. All told, most of us are going to cash in about six figures at the end of July '13 if we're still working here.

    14. Re:double this by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      You do realize Social Security pays survivor benefits, right? Usually to the surviving spouse, but it can also go to surviving children or even surviving parents, and it can be a substantial and ongoing payout. See http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html/#a0=1

    15. Re:double this by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Survivor benefits, what a scam. As I said: the money that you would have if you simply split your investment into 25% chunks, gold, cash, bonds, stocks, you'd have more money there at any moment, and it's ALL MONEY that you have put there, not monthly payments based on various gov't schemes. It's money that is available to you at any moment, you don't have to live to 65. If you want to start your business, you don't have to go to a bank or to a VC, you can start it on your own if you have savings.

      So think about it for a moment and tell me, would you opt out of SS if you could? What I mean is - if you didn't have to pay the payroll tax and you couldn't get any SS 'benefits' because of it once you are 65 (or older, it's not going to be 65 for too much longer), and you could have your money stored in whatever form you want, so you don't have to rely on gov't fiat cash, which IS becoming more worthless with every passing year. You wouldn't opt out?

    16. Re:double this by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

      I can tell you haven't been paying attention to your Social Security mailings. Or you're old. For my generation, retirement age for full benefits stands at age 70. (They've listed my "full retirement age" as 67 since I first became eligible for retirement benefits, but then there's a big jump in payouts if I wait until age 70, so 67 is "full" for only government values of "full".) I hear it's 72, for the generation after mine, but don't quote me on that. I'm certain of those ages because I keep every one of my annual SS mailings, neatly filed in my filing cabinet and I went and checked just now to make damn sure. I'm surprised you, of all people, didn't notice that, as vociferous as you are about these things. They slipped that one in at least a decade ago (not sure how much longer than that because I didn't have enough earned credit, as they call it, to qualify, so they didn't quote ages for me until then), and nobody really noticed. So that part has already happened.

      As for your suggested savings, it's a fine idea, except I don't know where you get your yield numbers, but they're mythical. My savings is in stocks, cash, and real estate, and I've seen nothing like what you suggest.

      I was careful not to overextend my real estate purchases, and I refused to get involved in any of the hyperinflated markets around the country, so when the crash came, I was affected only mildly. But that was no help. Required replacements for failing systems have cost so much that if I sold now, I would not recoup my investment. I owe less than I could realize from a sale, but only because I paid for those replacements with independent loans and paid them off as quickly as possible. The real estate "investment" I was advised to depend on by everyone from my parents to the scammers at Goldman Sachs may, if I'm exceedingly lucky, break even, and then only if I factor in the avoided dead loss of renting. As far as retirement goes, I could live in it, but I couldn't live on it. Real estate that I could actually buy, as opposed to renting from some bank, is in such shitty neighborhoods that it can only be improved with a bulldozer and living in it would be outright dangerous.

      Cash, I barely need to say anything. Interest rates on consumer cash have only fallen, throughout my lifetime. Even when the prime rate goes up, my cash savings yield remains in the toilet. It's been below inflation for my entire working lifetime and it's been indistinguishable from zero for half my working life. And this marvelous fiat cash does indeed become more worthless every year, so I have no idea why you would even suggest it as a savings vehicle.

      Stocks (and to a lesser extent bonds by way of mutual funds that invest in bonds) are the only bright spot, but their yield, year over year, is also far less than what you quote. I started investing in well managed mutual funds (and bailed out of one badly managed mutual fund sooner rather than later (don't remember if there were fraud charges after that meltdown, but the SEC was involved)) before the biggest part of the push by so-called retail investors in the market, but my earliest investments were some of my smallest, because my earning power back then was quite low. I've ridden out every bubble and panic since, and I continue riding reasonably up, but a careful accounting shows the high end of single digit percentage gains. Beats inflation, but it's nothing spectacular.

      Gold is irrelevant. It's in the midst of a giant bubble and anybody at the retail level who buys now is an utter fool. Even market making speculators are at risk, and whoever moves last is going to lose their shirt. The big boys will eventually stampede to something else and gold will plummet, probably leaving millions of retail investors holding the bag. The advice to invest in gold is 100% solid gold 20/20 hindsight, and it comes far too late. Nobody but survivalists and libertarians suggested it 15 years ago. Nobody at all suggested it 10 years ago--the advice was oil, then. People

    17. Re:double this by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Due some research before posting blanket statements.

      In fairness to the AC, your anecdote does not count as "research" either.

  7. Double Jeopardy, except not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is anyone else sick of the Tyrant Lords subverting the legal system to violate the clear intentions in the Constitution? I highly doubt the intentions of the 5th Amendment's Double Jeopardy were to become Null & Void from a simple jurisdictional venue swap.

    Oblig: IANAL
    Oblig: I am a Federalist Republican Proletariat.
    Oblig: They can pry my shotgun from my cold dead fingers.

    1. Re:Double Jeopardy, except not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oblig: They can pry my shotgun from my cold dead fingers.

      Oblig: Your proposal is acceptable.

    2. Re:Double Jeopardy, except not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you peasants so revolting?

    3. Re:Double Jeopardy, except not by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Why are you peasants so revolting?

      Must not have gotten their cake >.>

  8. Sounds Like It To Me by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    Being arrested and tried twice for the same crime sounds like the definition of double jeopardy to me, but I'd probably be excluded from most juries for knowing more than two amendments.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Sounds Like It To Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only problem is that the first arrest "vanished" via judicial judo

    2. Re:Sounds Like It To Me by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      but I'd probably be excluded from most juries for knowing more than two amendments.

      No, they would want you on a jury because you don't grasp what jurisdiction is. As the blurb states, this is being tried in State court, not Federal where the first trial was held. Double Jeopardy does not apply because of a different jurisdiction.

      You can be tried for the same crime so long as it is done in a different jurisdiction or in a different proceeding. It's similar to someone being brought to trial for a criminal case, then going back to court for essentially the same thing in civil court. Think OJ Simpson. He was found not guilty in the criminal case, but lost the civil case.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Sounds Like It To Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, the City of New York is preparing to follow up with their own prosecution in their jurisdiction if the State's trial is also overturned. The smaller "financial district" jurisdiction is continuing to review their options at this time.

      In many ways Justice in this country has turned into "if they want you they'll get you somehow". Gone is actual justice, it's been replaced by revenge.

    4. Re:Sounds Like It To Me by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

      You're right, but the doctrine is wrong. It's nowhere in the Constitution and is an interpretation of the fifth amendment that is contrary to both its spirit and its wording.

      "Can't get him in State court? Try him anyway, drag it out for two years. Then when he's acquitted, let's try him in Federal court - drag that out for two years. Then we can cleverly claim since some of the money was from people in other states, they can charge him in those states too. We'll ruin his life completely and there's nothing he can do about it, it's pretty sweet..."

      It's a fucking joke.

    5. Re:Sounds Like It To Me by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Double Jeopardy does not apply because of a different jurisdiction.

      Funny, I don't see that exception in the Constitution anywhere. This is what we traditionally call an "end run around the Constitution". Legalistic bullshit used to cover up a blatant violation of the highest law of the land. It's indefensible and you should be ashamed of your self for trying.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Sounds Like It To Me by maroberts · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Double jeopardy applies only to criminal cases, and nothing is said in the constitution about jurisdiction - he's still been tried on the same charge for the same actions. I'm fairly certain that any conviction would be overturned

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      Nothing about jurisdiction in there, is there? Even the fact that the court overturned the trial verdict does not mean the trial never occurred.
      Sergey Aleynikov may have performed dubious actions and got off due to the techicalities of the law, but that should be sufficient.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    7. Re:Sounds Like It To Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The doublethink is strong with this one.

      They are both trials by the government for the same crime committed in the same location.

      Perhaps you would bo okay if the government invented 20 new agencies, and gave them all their own little court systems so that they could claim their own "jurisdiction." What double jeopardy? The previous trial was in personal household financing court. This new trial is in individual family commercial court. It's a totally different jurisdiction.

    8. Re:Sounds Like It To Me by shentino · · Score: 1

      Revenge is fine.

      It's selective prosecution that you need to worry about, where those who are chummy with the powers that be get a blind eye turned their way.

    9. Re:Sounds Like It To Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that the state is within the Jurisdiction of the United States of America, which the constitution, and by extension the states, covers. States can't circumvent the first amendment, why would they be able to circumvent the fifth? Because it happens in a different building? I call bullshit.

  9. a lesson by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While the government protects the preferred banks, gives them infinite credit, while destroying the currency, the person who is punished is a guy that 'stole' some source code.

    While the banks are using the infinite credit and fake insurance by the government to pump one credit bubble after another, from stocks, to house prices, to bonds and dollars themselves, the person who gets busted is somebody who doesn't have anything to do with any financial transactions.

    The lesson is - if you steal, steal huge and make sure that you have strong government protection and cover. Actually be the government, that's the best way to steal. Have ties to all the governments in the world, finance wars and government debt by using central credit from the central banks. In fact just steal individual customer funds, if you are somebody like Corzine.

    But if you are a schmuck who decides to steal pencils from the bank, you are going to be made example of.

    1. Re: a lesson by denis-The-menace · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually be the government, that's the best way to steal.

      Proof: US Senators are allowed to commit insider trading.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    2. Re: a lesson by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Of-course. And that's just one way they steal legally. There are untold number of ways they steal. Gov't contracts... Who is running welfare schemes? Who is running food stamps? It's JPMorgan. I mean, think about this: the unlimited credit that the central bank provides to the preferred institutions. It's given out at no cost and the Treasury needs the money, so this is legal money laundering - using the infinite Fed's fake credit line to finance the Treasury through the intermediary, so that the intermediary can front run the deals (the Treasury announces what it's going to buy and at what price upfront!)

        This is freaking madness and it's all legal. Military contracts and undeclared wars. ALL government contracts. Infrastructure? It's child's play.

    3. Re:a lesson by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Actually be the government, that's the best way to steal.

      Well if you're the government, then it's not stealing. It's called tax. Levy. Fee. Tariff. Fine. Licence. But not stealing. It's perfectly legal, see how it says so here on this piece of paper I agreed to and signed, on your behalf?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re: a lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or if you're a certain senator from Nevada, you could buy inaccessible, worthless land outside of Las Vegas. Then get federal money to build access to that land and make a huge profit.

    5. Re: a lesson by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Actually be the government, that's the best way to steal.

      Proof: US Senators are allowed to commit insider trading.

      Also worth noting, the Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned company, not a government institution.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:a lesson by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Yeah, here is a list of crimes that gov't is involved with, and 'social contract' is one of those crimes.

      How about that social contract?

      Both Romney and Obama are running on the platform of tax cuts. Romney wants to cut taxes for all and Obama wants to cut taxes for the people who are not 1%, so I supposed the 99%, right?

      Obama is accusing Romney of 'Romneyhood' - taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich, but what does he mean by that? He means that Romney will have all these tax cuts, including the tax cuts for the rich and the poor will end up paying for that.

      But wait just a second, Obama also proposes tax cuts, and in his version of tax cuts, who is going to be paying for them?

      In order to have real tax cuts government must cut spending, otherwise it's not a tax cut (that's why Bush didn't really have tax cuts, he grew spending, and spending is the real tax, it's the future tax + interest, somebody must pay).

      Obama is clearly not interested in cutting government spending, but really then how can he say that Romney is going to grow taxes on the middle class and the poor by ALSO cutting taxes on middle class and the poor while also cutting tax on the top 1%.

      See, it's sleight of hand here as well, Obama is doing the same thing as Romney - promising tax cuts and the difference is that Obama is not going to cut spending. Romney IS talking about cutting spending, whether he'll do it ........ (that's why I am pro Ron Paul or Garry Johnson, not any of these other clowns).

      So back to the topic - here is the gist of this social contract - politicians promise the voters something NOW and they are promising NOT to tax for it. So the government spending continues and grows, and taxes are cut, so nothing is balanced.

      And this is the 'social contract' - it is the FUTURE that ends up with the bill. It's the credit, it's the tab. The future (whoever that is) is NOT voting in the elections. The future isn't being promised anything, but they are getting stuck with whatever the bill is.

      Of-course AFAIC the future is now, there is no future, the generations that are alive today will be paying for all this economic catastrophe that is happening today.

    7. Re:a lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you're the gubmint, then it's not stealing.

      There, fixed that for ya. It gives you argument that extra authoritative edge.

  10. different jurisdiction? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Can it get much more bogus than that?

    Oh, well, thank god they got this guy. I feel so much safer now, especially now that Goldman was just let off the hook once again. The SEC was obviously on a witch hunt designed to tear down one of our great pillars of society.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  11. Fifth amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Fifth Amendment's "double jeopardy" clause is unlikely to stop this case" because it's within a different jurisdiction — the earlier trial was in federal court, and this one is in New York State court.

    And so what? Doesn't the fifth apply both in federal and state court? I shudder at the precedent it will set if indeed he can be prosecuted twice, NEVER MIND that it is under different jurisdictions. He's already been tried. Give it up. This would open the doors to prosecuting ANYONE multiple times. That, in my opinion, is FAR worse than some petty software thief getting away with some stolen code.

  12. Really now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, guess we know who pays Cryus Vance's bills.

  13. I can't wait for the November election by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Once we get that evil bastard Bush out, things are going to be a lot better.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:I can't wait for the November election by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem isn't Bush or Obama - it's the system. The whole damned machine. It's no longer working for the people, it's working to feed itself from the people. The next step is that it starts eating people directly, seizing their assets and imprisoning/shooting their bodies. And it's not just the US government either - I can't believe the amount of bullshit that has been going on for the past 20 years, and especially since 9/11 because, you know, terrorism.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:I can't wait for the November election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is the people who let it happen when the fathers of the constitution warned you all about it years ago.

      But carry on just pointing fingers at somebody else.

    3. Re:I can't wait for the November election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Electing Romney is really going to help things like this isn't it.

    4. Re:I can't wait for the November election by Dunbal · · Score: 3

      "Let it happen"? How would you stop it - do tell. I'm not finger-pointing. I'm merely observing that there is a cycle to human history, and it's pretty obvious towards which end of the cycle we are headed. We call ourselves smart, but really I don't think there's anything we can do to stop it. Not individually and not collectively. Because the greed and corruption is part of our nature, as is our lazyness and our tolerance. So we go with the flow, while the immoral work their secret plots and plunder the wealth of society right in front of our eyes, until it reaches a point where we can take no more. Then we rise up, and smash the yoke that turned into a noose to strangle us. And then immediately settle our heads into a different yoke... But if all you're thinking is "republican/democrat/socialist/neocon" then you sir, can't see the wood for the trees.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:I can't wait for the November election by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      He fights for the little guy every time!

      (Of course, that's because their meat is usually more tender and goes well with a Pernod-Ricard Perrier-Jouet)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    6. Re:I can't wait for the November election by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't Bush or Obama - it's the system.

      Well, Obama is actually part of the problem here.
      The same Goldman Sachs that just got cleared of the sub-prime mortgage issue provided a good part of Obama's administration. A conflict of interest is absolutely guaranteed.

    7. Re:I can't wait for the November election by Kergan · · Score: 1

      The next step is that it starts eating people directly, seizing their assets and imprisoning/shooting their bodies.

      You mean like during the subprime crisis and thereafter, when heaps of Americans lost everything, or as in private-sector prison profiteering?

      And it's not just the US government either.

      Actually... I nearly only is.

    8. Re:I can't wait for the November election by Kergan · · Score: 1

      The problem is the people who let it happen when the fathers of the constitution warned you all about it years ago.

      Our founding thinkers from Ancient Greece got almost everything right. They invented tons of shit, including democracy, the steam engine, the vending machine, and the astrological clock. And they circumnavigated Africa two millennia before the Portuguese. Yet, to these mighty thinkers, the social rank of women was right between slaves and animals. And slaves were happy to have it up their's by philosophers and citizens, for the prestige. Seems silly today? It didn't back then. They were living within the spectrum of the ideas of their time. Are we worshiping them now? No.

      The US founding fathers had their own set of quirks. They were racist bigots, and more generally living within the spectrum of the ideas of their time. They hated bankers because of how those in London ganged up with the BoE to clobber colonial scrip six feet under prior to the war of independence, which led the US colonies into an economic depression (and, likely, to the war itself); not because of some keen insight on economics that was somehow lost since über-obsolete Adam Smith. These racist thinkers deserve no more worship than their misoginistic Greek counterparts.

      The world and mainstream ideas have evolved since the US revolution. Keep the good, drop the bad; and please... let go of your founding fathers and move on. Else you'll turn Amish before you know it.

    9. Re:I can't wait for the November election by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      It wasn't just subprime, it was almost all mortgages, it was the ARMs, it was all mortgages that had government backing (F&F and FDA fake insurance) behind them. It was the policy of easy credit by the Fed that allowed the banks to gamble with money that wasn't bank's money and the losses were socialised by the gov't fake insurance.

      As to people who 'lost everything', don't be so quick in that judgement. How many of the people that lost their houses actually had any equity?

      You see, it matters very much in this question, whether they lost ANYTHING or whether they were allowed to live far beyond their means for a prolonged period of time (that's why the general population doesn't rise up against its gov't, because these policies DO provide short term gain, even if at the cost of destroying the economy).

      If you have no equity or very little equity in that property, then what do you lose? If you were refinancing your house every year as prices were being inflated all the time and people thought prices could never fall, then how much did you actually pull OUT of those homes?

      How many people thought that they would never have to work, they could have this bubble inflated forever? Nobody wanted to admit it was a bubble (almost nobody, those who talked about it were laughed at).

      How many people bought second homes, bought cars, expensive furniture and gadgets, took vacations, etc.etc., all by refinancing their homes that they thought could never fall in price?

      So some of them are being kicked out of the houses? They never owned them. Who actually got screwed? The people whose money was loaned out to buy those houses, but because so much of that money was just printed, it was everybody and every business that suffered from inflation, the costs of which pushed investment capital to Asia and other places.

      Sure, the people do suffer at the end, but not because of being pushed out of the properties they never paid for, it's because they now have a broken economy they can't do anything with.

    10. Re:I can't wait for the November election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have the right to bear arms for a reason, "to the security of a free State". Start shooting and don't stop until you have a "free State" again.

      (by your definition of free)

    11. Re:I can't wait for the November election by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      It's going to take a long time to clean up the damage he did.

      Sorry.

    12. Re:I can't wait for the November election by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      As to people who 'lost everything', don't be so quick in that judgement. How many of the people that lost their houses actually had any equity?

      I did. Of course, I didn't lose my house. I did, however, lose a lot of my equity.

      Nobody wanted to admit it was a bubble (almost nobody, those who talked about it were laughed at)

      Bullshit, stop revising history. Everyone knew it was a bubble, people just differed on when they thought it would burst. Seriously, how can you possible misremember that?

      How many people bought second homes, bought cars, expensive furniture and gadgets, took vacations, etc.etc., all by refinancing their homes that they thought could never fall in price?

      Many fewer than you imagine.

      but because so much of that money was just printed, it was everybody and every business that suffered from inflation,

      Inflation was low-to-modest during the the housing runup, and even lower since then.

      the costs of which pushed investment capital to Asia and other places

      It was the drop in the value of the dollar relative to other currencies that drove investment elsewhere. This is not the same as inflation.

      Do you seriously believe even half the stuff you write?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    13. Re:I can't wait for the November election by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      Yup, that's part of the cycle.

    14. Re:I can't wait for the November election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree with this, and yet I don't speak of it because I don't feel like trying to explain it to people who ask why I have the insane gall to mock or "disrespect" our "founding fathers".

      I really wonder why thomas jefferson has a big memorial in DC. The man was a highly skilled wordsmith. That's it. he was also a gigantic hypocrit slave-owning piece of fucking shit. Yet he is fucking idolized by so many idiots who buy into the bullshit and can't imagine seeing him for what he really was, because you know, america is amazing and those that started it were flawless gods and blah blah blah iraq was a great decision too blor blee blooo

    15. Re:I can't wait for the November election by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I did. Of course, I didn't lose my house. I did, however, lose a lot of my equity.

      - so you overpaid and you didn't refinance like the rest of them, and in your own words: Everyone knew it was a bubble. This makes you a liar OR it makes you stupid, it's your choice, which one do you take?

      Either YOU knew about the bubble and you didn't refinance in order to pull the money out, you didn't sell the house to pull the money out, which makes you stupid.

      OR (which I think is the case)

      You didn't know anything. You were just another lemming, jumping off the cliff with the rest of them, and that's why you didn't pull the equity out (which was an easy way to pull money out of the bubble into your own account) and you didn't sell.

      Bullshit, stop revising history. Everyone knew it was a bubble, people just differed on when they thought it would burst. Seriously, how can you possible misremember that?

      - Bullshit, you are the one revising history and I can easily show it.

      Let's look at Bernanke first.

      (October 20, 2005) "House prices have risen by nearly 25 percent over the past two years. Although speculative activity has increased in some areas, at a national level these price increases largely reflect strong economic fundamentals."

      (February 15, 2006) "Housing markets are cooling a bit. Our expectation is that the decline in activity or the slowing in activity will be moderate, that house prices will probably continue to rise."

      (January 10, 2008) "The Federal Reserve is not currently forecasting a recession."

      (March 28, 2007) "At this juncture, however, the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained. In particular, mortgages to prime borrowers and fixed-rate mortgages to all classes of borrowers continue to perform well, with low rates of delinquency."

      (July, 2005) "Weâ(TM)ve never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So, what I think what is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize, might slow consumption spending a bit. I donâ(TM)t think itâ(TM)s gonna drive the economy too far from its full employment path, though."

      (February 15, 2007) "Despite the ongoing adjustments in the housing sector, overall economic prospects for households remain good. Household finances appear generally solid, and delinquency rates on most types of consumer loans and residential mortgages remain low."

      #18 (May 17, 2007) "All that said, given the fundamental factors in place that should support the demand for housing, we believe the effect of the troubles in the subprime sector on the broader housing market will likely be limited, and we do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system. The vast majority of mortgages, including even subprime mortgages, continue to perform well. Past gains in house prices have left most homeowners with significant amounts of home equity, and growth in jobs and incomes should help keep the financial obligations of most households manageable."

      "The GSEs are adequately capitalized. They are in no danger of failing."

      (Two months before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed and were nationalized) "They will make it through the storm."

      Let's look at the talking heads, what were they laughing at back then?

      What they laughing at now?

      Many fewer than you imagine.

      - on

    16. Re:I can't wait for the November election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, everyone did not think it was a bubble. I remember reading the housing bubble blogs back in 2005, and while the majority of readers there knew it was a bubble, the public at large did not. Many people came onto the blogs claiming "bubbleheads" were out of their mind, missing out on guaranteed returns, it was a new paradigm, etc.

      Look at the Peter Schiff interviews of those days. He was brought on to be mocked by the mainstream "experts" and the notion of a bubble was laughable.

      The public for the most part believes what these so-called experts tell them. Real estate experts know the markets and wouldn't mislead you, would they? Economists went to school for a long time, they couldn't possibly be wrong or have an industry-appointed agenda, could they? Governments wouldn't lie to the people, would they?

      Very few people believed it was a bubble until so much damage was done that the truth was inescapable.

      Take a look at Canada right now. They still have that mentality. They learned NOTHING from the US bubble and are doomed to the same fate.

    17. Re:I can't wait for the November election by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Oh I will. But you first. That's human nature too...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  14. Can I ask a question? by tlambert · · Score: 1

    So... who exactly would want Goldman Sachs software, which directed them to engage in illegal practices? I mean, other than federal prosecutors, who have decided not to prosecute anyway?

  15. Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just lobotomize anyone when they leave your company, then its not an issue of them stealing your secrets

    1. Re:Simple Solution by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      pretty soon people looking for a career change are going to have to hire shadowrunners.

  16. Leak the code! by dontbgay · · Score: 1

    If they're gonna be frying him like this, why don't he let everyone get a peek at what's so important? They're gonna keep hammering him til something sticks, why not spill the beans?

    --
    Sig not found.
    1. Re:Leak the code! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure would be a shame if that code ended up on TPB or some server in China somewhere, hm? Granted, that would make his jail time even worse when he's convicted (and he will be, the forces against him have way too much money and influence). But if you're going to go down, go down in a blaze of glory.

      But at the same time, if he DID do something illegal, he should be punished appropriately. We do have laws for a reason. The laws may be inane sometimes, but as terrible as they may be, we should follow them while we work very hard to get the changed or removed entirely.

    2. Re:Leak the code! by dontbgay · · Score: 1

      If I were getting put away for a long time, I'd have a few people with a thumb drive and as soon as the conviction fell, it'd be blasted to every sharing site on the web. Let em spend their cash trying to contain that collateral they use to borrow millions against. It'd be interesting to see what the math geeks and analysts make of the code.

      --
      Sig not found.
  17. Secret Sauce! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Probably the reason they are coming down on him so hard is that the code has something embarressing, incriminating, illegal, unethical or all of the above and more for Goldman Sacks. They are just trying to suppress more evidence against them, and since they seem to own the governmnet and courts, that seems the best way to do it.

    Probably using the procedure names "Money Laundering", "investment fraud", etc... wasn't a wise idea.

  18. $400 or $800 by MatrixCubed · · Score: 1

    That's Double Jeopardy. Entries start at $200, and are for even-numbered amounts.

    1. Re:$400 or $800 by MatrixCubed · · Score: 1

      That should read $400 or $600. :-)

  19. Is it theft by houghi · · Score: 1

    or is it copyright infringement?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Is it theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its piracy.

  20. We are borked as a nation by tekrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow, I think I have finally witnessed the last straw.

    Interestingly, I attended last night, a debate at a group known as "Drinking Liberally" where the president of the local group stated that he could not vote for Obama, because the administration has a kill-list, has not been transparent, has not closed Guantanamo, and has continued many of the Bush Policies that we had hoped to change. The Woman debating him stated that NOT voting for Obama was voting for Romney who will be worse. That didn't change the mind of the group leader who said he would be voting Green Party.

    Now, I am wondering myself about this in the context of this blatant attempt to subvert the law so that the 1% can get what they want, and the lawyers and politicians are clearly on the side of the 1% and not looking out for the rights of the people.

    We are truly borked as nation. There's no going back from this kind of corruption. If this even goes to COURT, it's a complete breakdown of our "justice" system (and I use that term loosely.

    Tell me Mr. Prosecutor; how many arrests have you made from the financial boondoggle of 2008? How many arrests have you made from the Robo-Foreclosure scandal? But you're supporting the whims of the very crooks who have robbed our nation? Why not just start working for the Mafia? I hear they pay good as well.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:We are borked as a nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This resonates with me. I too feel that Obama has failed in many ways. The deficit is getting out of control our civil rights are being eroded. No prosecutions for the banking fraud or the wiretapping. And I also feel that Romney will be even worse. I am certain that neither side will fix the deficit or eliminate the illegal wire tapping. Apparently the executive branch can do anything it really wants, because it has sovereign immunity and there is no organization with the power to check it. Hence the illegal wire tapping continues. Congress passes a law preventing prosecution of the telcos for helping out and the ninth circuit court says go ahead and wiretap, there is nothing anything anybody can do to stop it.

    2. Re:We are borked as a nation by GSloop · · Score: 2

      An interesting side note:

      If Romney was pres, would Dems stand up and complain loudly [and with maximum hypocrisy] about Romney's transgressions on civil liberties?
      Probably yeah.

      And if we'd had nursing-home-fodder McCain instead of B.O. - would have Dems done that [complained vigorously]? Yup - they sure would have.

      And the result would have been that violating civil liberties [what a meek description for a "kill/murder your own citizens without any judicial oversight," among other things.] would have been a one-party Republican supported mess. But now it is the new "normal." Both Dems and Reps think it's "great" and we're stuck with it.

      I don't like that line of thinking any better than any other progressives do, but it's something to consider.

      ---
      Lastly, anyone that uses the "They are worse." is simply a moron. Hitler was probably worse than Stalin - but I'm not voting for Stalin no matter how much better he was than Hitler.

      "Harold over there shoots little children and *eats* them. We only shoot them. You ought to side with us!"
      Sheesh.

      -Greg

  21. And that is stupid. by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    I don't care about the technical excuse, it is being put into court more than 1 time for the same crime and possibly being punished more than once. The state exists within the federal - like a hierarchy and should not be the same as two different states. I have no problem if the crime differs but for the SAME crime the federal case should prevent the state case. Given how many laws there are I'm sure they can find other charges and string them out to keep him on trial for decades... at least that is not as cheap.

    OJ: If you are NOT convicted on a criminal case you should not be open to civil cases on the SAME crime even if they rename "murder' to "wrongful death." If he was convicted then maybe he could be sued in civil court for damages such as lost income etc. although I think the criminal case should handle such issues as well. Simply for the family to sue for blood money (makes me think of Sharia law) is not reasonable. Revenge is not justice.

    The real story is how Goldman is untouchable.

    1. Re:And that is stupid. by multiplexo · · Score: 1
      Right On! You've hit the nail on the head with this one. Brilliant post. I would mod you up if I had points but I don't, so I'll have to give you a blowjob instead. Let's look at the "two different jurisdictions" claim. Is there anyone who doubts that there is not cooperation between the Department of Justice and the Manhattan District Attorney's office on this case? Does anyone who is a lawyer (IANAL, oh, and I'm not a lawyer either) know if it would be possible for Aleynikov's attorney to make the case that there is cooperation between the two agencies and that this cooperation constitutes a violation of the double jeopardy clause? Seriously, take a look at the press release from Vance's office and at these two sentences:

      District Attorney Vance thanked Supervisory Special Agent Michael McSwain of the FBI’s New York Field Office. District Attorney Vance also thanked Goldman Sachs for its assistance and cooperation in the investigation.

      So we have the Manhattan District Attorney's office admitting that the FBI cooperated with them on this case as well as Goldman Sachs and thanking them for their cooperation. It's the same goddamned case! How many times can they try Aleynikov for the same crime? If this attempt fails can the state of Illinois go after him because he was supposed to go to work for a Chicago based firm?

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  22. US Not Seeking Goldman Charges by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Informative

    "After a yearlong investigation, the Justice Department said Thursday that it won't bring charges against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. or any of its employees for financial fraud related to the mortgage crisis."

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443537404577579840698144490.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    "But Goldman, as the Levin report makes clear, remains an ascendant company precisely because it used its canny perception of an upcoming disaster (one which it helped create, incidentally) as an opportunity to enrich itself, not only at the expense of clients but ultimately, through the bailouts and the collateral damage of the wrecked economy, at the expense of society. The bank seemed to count on the unwillingness or inability of federal regulators to stop them - and when called to Washington last year to explain their behavior, Goldman executives brazenly misled Congress, apparently confident that their perjury would carry no serious consequences. Thus, while much of the Levin report describes past history, the Goldman section describes an ongoing? crime - a powerful, well-connected firm, with the ear of the president and the Treasury, that appears to have conquered the entire regulatory structure and stands now on the precipice of officially getting away with one of the biggest financial crimes in history."

    "To recap: Goldman, to get $1.2 billion in crap off its books, dumps a huge lot of deadly mortgages on its clients, lies about where that crap came from and claims it believes in the product even as it's betting $2 billion against it. When its victims try to run out of the burning house, Goldman stands in the doorway, blasts them all with gasoline before they can escape, and then has the balls to send a bill overcharging its victims for the pleasure of getting fried."

    "So let's move on to something much simpler. In the spring of 2010, about a year into his investigation, Sen. Levin hauled all of the principals from these rotten Goldman deals to Washington, made them put their hands on the Bible and take oaths just like normal people, and demanded that they explain themselves. The legal definition of financial fraud may be murky and complex, but everybody knows you can't lie to Congress.

    ""Article 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001," says Loyola University law professor Michael Kaufman. "There are statutes that prohibit perjury and obstruction of justice, but this is the federal statute that explicitly prohibits lying to Congress."

    The law is simple: You're guilty if you "knowingly and willfully" make a "materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation." The punishment is up to five years in federal prison."

    "Lloyd Blankfein went to Washington and testified under oath that Goldman Sachs didn't make a massive short bet and didn't bet against its clients. The Levin report proves that Goldman spent the whole summer of 2007 riding a "big short" and took a multibillion-dollar bet against its clients, a bet that incidentally made them enormous profits. Are we all missing something? Is there some different and higher standard of triple- and quadruple-lying that applies to bank CEOs but not to baseball players?"

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511?print=true

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:US Not Seeking Goldman Charges by cpu6502 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This article is high on chest-beating and low on actual facts: "When its victims try to run out of the burning house, Goldman stands in the doorway, blasts them all with gasoline before they can escape, and then has the balls to send a bill overcharging its victims for the pleasure of getting fried." --- Really? Sets people aflame with gasoline?!?!? Was this the WSJ with Alex Jones filling-in as a reporter? (Here's a thought: Tell us what Goldman ACTUALLY did wrong instead of using hyperbole that makes them sound like the darkest, meanest SS officer in the camps.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:US Not Seeking Goldman Charges by sycodon · · Score: 1

      He should have to something civilized and accepted these days, like accusing Goldman of giving some woman cancer.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:US Not Seeking Goldman Charges by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Informative

      What. Outright perjuring Congress is not explicit enough for you?

      Howzabowt Levin's report:

      "Using their own words in documents subpoenaed by the Subcommittee, the report discloses how financial firms deliberately took advantage of their clients and investors,"

      "New documents and information detail how Goldman recommended four CDOs, Hudson, Anderson, Timberwolf, and Abacus, to its clients without fully disclosing key information about those products, Goldmanâ(TM)s own market views, or its adverse economic interests. For example, in Hudson, Goldman told investors that its interests were "aligned" with theirs when, in fact, Goldman held 100% of the short side of the CDO and had adverse interests to the investors, and described Hudsonâ(TM)s assets were "sourced from the Street," when in fact, Goldman had selected and priced the assets without any third party involvement.

      New documents also reveal that, at one point in May 2007, Goldman Sachs unsuccessfully tried to execute a "short squeeze" in the mortgage market so that Goldman could scoop up short positions at artificially depressed prices and profit as the mortgage market declined."

      https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/14-2

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:US Not Seeking Goldman Charges by Nitewing98 · · Score: 1

      "Are we all missing something? Is there some different and higher standard of triple- and quadruple-lying that applies to bank CEOs but not to baseball players?"

      Yes. As long as "corporations are people" and can line the coffers of Congress' re-election funds, they won't be called on anything. This is why corporations are NOT people.

      --

      Nitewing '98

      Everything works...in theory.

    5. Re:US Not Seeking Goldman Charges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New documents and information detail how Goldman recommended four CDOs, Hudson, Anderson, Timberwolf, and Abacus, to its clients

      Come on...I mean...really?! Come on!

    6. Re:US Not Seeking Goldman Charges by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2

      (Here's a thought: Tell us what Goldman ACTUALLY did wrong instead of using hyperbole that makes them sound like the darkest, meanest SS officer in the camps.)

      Here's the thing. The misdeeds of Goldman and others would normally be revealed if any of these investigations resulted in a trial. Unfortunately the current practice is to settle with the bank in question after payment of a small fine, after which the records of the investigation are summarily deleted,

      If you choose to report the findings of any such investigation, Goldman can easily set a team of crack lawyers onto you for libel. You may be correct, but since the investigation files have been destroyed, you have no way of proving that you are right.

      In the face of this, you can either resort to hyperbole in print, protest in the streets, or frankly vigilantism at night. You could also try appealing to the democratic process, but I think we all know that that's a crock by now.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    7. Re:US Not Seeking Goldman Charges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea. Instead of letting people that rob massive amounts from funds provided entirely by US taxpayers get away with it on technical details, why don't we call the obvious shenanigans out as they are?? Does it really matter if Goldman-Sachs appropriated billions of taxpayer dollars for any purpose at all? No corporation should be allowed to do that AT ALL. It is very sad that USAcans will let that EXTREMELY obvious and not at all hard to dispute fact slide in the interests of those that fund the bullshit. Overcome your cognitive dissonance already, please.

  23. Double jeapordy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This IS double jeopardy because it is the same "crime" and same set of facts. If for any reason this case is refiled, or tried, or convicted, all the freedom advocates should taker all the way to whatever court is needed to set a precedent that state and federal "jurisdiction shopping" cannot be used to bypass a lower court ruling, particularly one that exonerates the perp. Also it should be made clear double jeopardy is a federal standard that applies to all subdivisions of the government. Also since our government now jurisdiction shops other countries (New Zealand) and legal systems (UN), this is an important standard that needs to be protected not neutered.

    Remember, justice is blind. Not retributional or fixated. It is the police, prosecutors and politicians that are retributional and fixated. That's why we need a constitution to begin with!

    JJ

  24. Black-Scholes is a secret sauce? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since when are Black-Scholes and insider trading a secret sauce?

  25. Maybe not for much longer by kiwimate · · Score: 1
  26. high frequency trading, criminal activity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one really wish I understood what this high frequency trading was actually doing. The algorithms cannot be working on a concept of "true value" because the "true value" of an asset does not change every millisecond. The algorithms could be working on predicting price momentum. That is the current price direction is likely to continue for some period of time. This type of algorithm only bothers me a little bit, since I think almost all people putting money in the market are playing a momentum game over some period of time. I have a feeling that it may be impossible to predict price momentum. I mean if you have enough high frequency trading computers trying to predict how long a price trend will last and making bets on this, I think you will end up with random price changes, and this is not predictable. Thus there is no money to be made with this scheme. This leaves the third category of exploiting inefficiency between multiple exchanges or exploiting some other feature of the trading system. I believe this to be an illegal activity, resulting in money being stolen. I once wrote a program to analyze buying/selling based upon moving averages. Buying at the moving average minima, and selling at its maxima. This was a losing strategy for all relatively short moving averages. I forget where positive territory was, somewhere around 360 day moving averages, but these did not beat buy and hold. I could pick a different algorithm and try again. There is a method for using candlesticks or fibonnaci sequences. I suspect these won't work either, but I haven't tried yet.

  27. overturned != acquitted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    overturned != acquitted

    Double Jeopardy does not apply to overturned convictions.

  28. you need for $400 or for $1000 by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    don't forget that in Double Jeopardy the amounts are Doubled so you can't take anything for an odd amount in DJ.

    nice twist on the normal "its not DJ because this is a Civil Suit" thing

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    1. Re:you need for $400 or for $1000 by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can find $1000 in the Jeopardy! round now - they doubled the amounts a few years ago, so Double Jeopardy! amounts are $400, $800, $1200, $1600, or $2000.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
  29. So. Another way around the 5th. by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Let's see, we've got Federal civil rights violations (not murder, so it's a separate charge). We've got civil cases (lower standard of proof, no jail but stripping of assets). Now we've got jurisdiction shopping.

    How many licks does it take to get to the chewy center of oppression in the Constitutional Tootsie-Pop? A one... A two... CRUNCH! Three?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  30. It is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Rights" only exist to protect the people who matter (and many such rights are unwritten and generally unspoken, but actively protected by our government nonetheless). The people who do not matter seem to think they are entitled to these rights as well, which they are not. The justice system sometimes plays along with this outrageous sense of entitlement, but only when the people who do not matter are being threatened by other people who do not matter.

    When people who do not matter irritate people who matter, expect retribution (possibly, but not always, with a token gesture of justice in the form of a temporary posturing towards due process).

    1. Re:It is true by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      When people who do not matter irritate people who matter...

      Please, get the right terminology. The right way is: "When a peasant irritates a noble..."

  31. Obligatory Brazil Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating."

  32. Food chain by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    So a Federal judge is below a state judge?

    How can the state prosecute if a federal court has thrown it out?

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    1. Re:Food chain by shentino · · Score: 1

      Apparently because of two different laws

  33. Standard & Chartered wants unified settlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Funny how a global bank can ask for state and federal settlements that are "unified" but a person isn't allowed to make that same argument and would likely look guilty for even suggesting such a thing in the first place. What's more dangerous from a public good standpoint? The guy that allegedly pissed on Goldman Sachs which is obligated to protect it's own damn secrets be they "sauce" or otherwise or the bank that allegedly pissed on a good portion of the world in the name of profits? A global financial system with sentiment driven currencies (Like the USD) isn't likely to work if there is no trust or worse no assurances that banks aren't simply above the laws of any country or a superior class of "people".

    For example, most folks in the US (should) know not to bank anywhere that doesn't offer FDIC or reputable equivalent (SPIC, NCUA etc) insurer and not to let depository accounts exceed the insured limit. We don't trust banks and haven't really in quite some time (if ever) and as such the government had to start insuring deposits to get people to put their money into the banks again. (Mind you we'll be ignoring the hook that banks had to join the federal reserve system to participate in the mandated insurance program which was funded by loans in part by the federal reserve itself along with the US Treasury.) What doesn't seem common knowledge is that large depository banks have trillions in derivatives (financial products based on top of other assets, sometimes other derivatives.) on their books along with the folks deposits. Should those underlying assets or derivatives (we must assume there is a real asset in there somewhere along the chain...right?) fail they, in some circumstances, could make the bank insolvent. It is unclear if the FDIC could cover such a scenario with even one of the nations largest banks let alone a more systemic failure of multiple banks. In the worst case scenario the choices would be bail the bank out or potentially let it bankrupt the FDIC system and cause an unprecedented bank run.

  34. Secret Sauce?!? by mcl630 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who's annoyed by software being referred to as "secret sauce"? As a software developer is sounds like either they're trivializing the work that goes into writing complicated software, or they're trying to dumb down their statements unnecessary.

    1. Re:Secret Sauce?!? by multiplexo · · Score: 1

      Dude, you should use it. Next time you come up for a review at work tell your boss that you deserve a raise because even though the company has other developers that they're just developers, where as you're the guy who writes the "secret sauce". If he asks you what it is tell him that you can't tell him, because it's a secret.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  35. The Fifth Amendment should apply... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry...the Fourteenth Amendment EXPLICITLY applies the Bill of Rights to the States. Trying him again WOULD violate the Fifth Double-Jeapordy clause.

  36. In a universe with a God by P.+Legba · · Score: 1

    they'd call it the "illegal market rigging secret sauce."

    Aleynikov should have folk songs written about him.

  37. Post the "secret sauce" on-line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then they'll have to arrest everyone who looks or downloads it.
    I am pretty sure there's nothing special about - unlike insider trading that's happening at GS and all other firms (who all claim they are playing by the rules)

  38. Stealing from jews carries death verdict by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This russian antisemite will be executed by an UZI-wielding Mossad agent, because it is simple not allowed and not tolerable to steal from jewish people! (Goldman Sachs is proudly jewish run, just like all banks of the world, because only the genes of Isaac, not those of the goyim, enable economic wisdom.) They want to give this thief a chance to sit in the cooler for a few years and atone for the sin of stealing from the chosen tribe, so he becomes a better person. Yet the russian antisemite is stubborn in his vileness and makes a mockery of laws, both divinely granted and man-made. There is nothing left but the bullet. Jewish people will not be stripped of wealth and life this time, Masada must not fall again!

  39. This code is so highly confidential? by dgharmon · · Score: 1

    He used Open Source to write the original app and on leaving the company took his own code with him.

    "The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Sergey Aleynikov, a naturalized US citizen from Russia, was not guilty of stealing computer code under the Economic Espionage Act (EEA)". link Feb 2012

    "A defense lawyer, Kevin Marino, argued in his opening statement that Aleynikov intended to strip out pieces of open- source software" link

    "During a two-week trial, Marino told jurors that his client was merely trying to copy parts of the companyâ(TM)s software that were taken from public software codes". link

    --
    AccountKiller
  40. Did he write it? by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    If he wrote it then he owns it. Even if he wrote it for the company he works at he still owns it. You can only steal code that you don't type.

  41. Secret sauce is worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you actually think your code is a type of secret sauce it should tell you it is worthless.

    1. Secret sauce is usually ketchup and mayo and in code it is about as inventive
    2.Anyone with a little programming sense can use a program and figure out how it works,