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.

Comments

Finally, justice in New York

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Out of his mind

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Out of his mind

[Talderas]

How is this not blackmail?

Re:Out of his mind

[gl4ss]

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.

Re:Out of his mind

[dmorris68]

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.

Re:Out of his mind

[lightknight]

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.

Re:Out of his mind

[Nitewing98]

"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?

I'll Take....

[Eldragon]

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

Re:I'll Take....

[dkleinsc]

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.

Re:I'll Take....

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:I'll Take....

[bluefoxlucid]

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

Re:I'll Take....

[Dunbal]

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.

Re:I'll Take....

[tmosley]

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.

Re:I'll Take....

[damien_kane]

Bing acquitted

Bing should never be acquitted

Re:I'll Take....

[whoever57]

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.

Re:I'll Take....

[pla]

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.

Re:I'll Take....

[Local ID10T]

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

Re:I'll Take....

[Hatta]

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.

double this

[alphatel]

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

Re:double this

[llebegue]

Easier to strike the small fish than the big ones

Re:double this

[roman_mir]

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.

Re:double this

[sycodon]

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

Fixed.

Re:double this

[dkleinsc]

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

Re:double this

[roman_mir]

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.

Re:double this

[Areyoukiddingme]

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

Sounds Like It To Me

[Greyfox]

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.

Re:Sounds Like It To Me

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Sounds Like It To Me

[maroberts]

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.

a lesson

[roman_mir]

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.

Re: a lesson

[denis-The-menace]

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

Proof: US Senators are allowed to commit insider trading.

different jurisdiction?

[fustakrakich]

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.

I can't wait for the November election

[Vinegar Joe]

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

Re:I can't wait for the November election

[Dunbal]

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.

Re:I can't wait for the November election

[Dunbal]

"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.

Re:I can't wait for the November election

[Overzeetop]

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)

Re:I can't wait for the November election

[Khashishi]

Yup, that's part of the cycle.

Re:This come to mind...

[sycodon]

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

We are borked as a nation

[tekrat]

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.

Re:We are borked as a nation

[GSloop]

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

Re:This come to mind...

[pla]

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... ;)

US Not Seeking Goldman Charges

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"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

Re:US Not Seeking Goldman Charges

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

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

Re:US Not Seeking Goldman Charges

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

(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.

Re:This come to mind...

[Kergan]

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.)

Re:This come to mind...

[pla]

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

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

Re:This come to mind...

[flyingsquid]

Incidentally, here's the secret, proprietary code he stole:

10 SCREW CUSTOMER
20 MAKE PROFIT
30 GOTO 10

Re:Maybe not for much longer

[roman_mir]

Sleight of hand and.... nothing changes.

Re:This come to mind...

[Eponymous Hero]

pretty basic, no?

Re:This come to mind...

[Hognoxious]

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?