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.

7 of 176 comments (clear)

  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: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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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... ;)

  5. 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 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..."
  6. 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.)