While the sentence is being appealed, will he be in incarcerated in jail or remain out in bail until 2013 or so?

incarcerated

as it says in the article, while the sentence is being appealed, he will remain free on $100 million bail.

JKCTAX:

How confident are you that he will be incarcerated after the sentence is imposed? What basis do you have?

I thought in some instances, defendants stay free until the appeals process is concluded. Is this assumption not true?

thanks

Richard

Sorry Jade, it doesn't say that. it says he will remain free on bond until "at least the sentencing"--after he is sentenced, he will be incarcerated (if that is part of the sentence--all but assured). There he will remain, until his appeal is decided (and, unless they throw out the wiretaps, expect him to serve most of his sentence, whatever it may be)...

Bet he's going to find a way to run. He has nice digs to run to.

Mr Henning - I have seen other reports that RR could serve up to 5 years on each of 5 separate counts and up to 20 years on each of the remaining 9. Where are they getting their math? Thanks, T

This guy didn't kill anybody. He didn't cause the financial crisis. He's simply got caught doing what is doubtless the norm on Wall Street. I certainly will not sleep better knowing he was convicted of insider trading and may do jail time. I'd rather we have a system in which the Rajaratnam's of this world paid their fare share of taxes on their obscene incomes than do jail time at tax payer's expense.

With all the money this guy STILL has, it will be years, if EVER, before this guy sees the inside of a jail!

As James Stewart pointed out in "Den of Thieves" (about Milken & co), the REAL deterrent punishment would be to take away ALL of the malefactors' money, INCLUDING what they hide off-shore and under family members' names! THAT was over 20 YEARS AGO!

The really tricky issue here is exactly when can sentence be imposed CONCURRENTLY - that is, the defendant gets 10 years for 10 different charges, but serves all 10 sentences at once. It seems that several of these offenses - although similar in definition and character - were entirely separate. That is, if a guy robs a bank every Monday for the next 12 weeks, and then gets caught + convicted for 12 bank robberies, I seriously doubt he would serve time equivalent to just ONE robbery.

In response to comment #7, the total maximum authorized sentence for the 14 counts of conviction is 205 years, which breaks down to 5 years for each conspiracy count (25 years total) and 20 years for each securities fraud count (180 years total). Theoretically the judge could sentence him to serve the maximum term in consecutive sentences, which is essentially what happened in the sentencing of Bernie Madoff. I doubt that will happen, and I expect Judge Holwell will follow the Federal Sentencing Guidelines recommendation (whatever that turns out to be, based largely on the gains/losses avoided calculation) and sentence at the low end of the range. If he finds the offense level to be 36, as outlined in the post, then I expect he'll sentence to about 188 months, a bit over 15 years (but then minus the 15 per cent reduction for good time). But he has the discretion to go higher (or lower), although he would need to articulate his reasons for doing so, and it would be subject to appeal by either side that was dissatisfied with the sentence.

On the issue of bail raised in other comments, Mr. Rajaratnam remains free on bail (it was continued) until his sentencing, so long as he complies with the bail conditions. He has done that to this point, and so I expect he will continue to do so. The larger question is bail pending appeal after sentencing. Under the Bail Reform Act, the presumption is the defendant should be incarcerated whle the case is on appeal, but Judge Holwell can allow bail so long as there is no risk of flight and there is a "substantial question of law or fact" that would likely result in reversal of the conviction if decided in a defendant's favor. The most likely issue to meet the "substantial question" requirement is the wiretap one, and there is a reasonable chance Judge Holwell will find it sufficient to authorize bail pending appeal. If he does not, Mr. Rajaratnam can also seek bail from the Second Circuit, which is less likely to grant it if the district court did not, but it is certainly not impossible. We will learn the decision on bail pending appeal at the sentencing, and also whether Mr. Rajaratnam will be required to report immediately or be given time to surrender if continued bail is denied. But that's all for a post later in the summer when we get closer to the actual sentencing date.

I hope this is helpful.

I think the "abuse of a position of trust" applies, because he was the head of the hedge fund, unlike a rogue trader, Raj's indictment directly brought down the fund (the fund is closed), his investors was forced to liquidate out at absolutely the most inconvenient time (at the market low during the financial crisis), the offense level should be increased by 2 points.

With regard to the potential sentence, is it possible now the government can negotiate, Raj certainly can sell out a few "friends" in exchange for lighter sentences?

The writer may think this case is noway near over, that may only be true for the readers.

Raj is convicted. His worst fears have arrived. He will be incarcerated and lose his freedoms, his reputation, his family's repuration and all self worth.

Criminal prosecution inflicts tremendous private mental hell jail time that starts with the indictment. It is overconsuming of every thought, act and decision. There is no rest, no sleep and no peace.
Only regrets and recriminations.

His appeal will be the same as Jeffrey Skillings. A money maker for the lawyers.

I think there is a good probability he flees. Just like Marc Rich. And then buy a pardon 20 years later. He may then have his freedom, but never the peace of mind- similar to Roman Polansky.

This is a life sentence from a mental anguish standpoint.

How much is enough???

"Galleon case not over."

Philip II of Spain said that in 1588.

A judge will decide whether to let him stay out of jail during the appeal.

I am a bit confused by this comment by Mr. Henning, "If the decision to admit the wiretaps as evidence at trial is upheld by the Second Circuit, then Mr. Rajaratnam faces a very difficult task in finding other issues that would result in overturning the convictions."

The Second Circuit has made it clear that a person with a fiduciary responsibility to the company whose stock is traded can be whacked for insider trading. Further, a person the "misappropriates" information that belongs to their own employer to trade can be held responsible. It does not appear, superficially, that this defendant falls into either category.

The classic example of the limitation of insider trading liability is the case of a person overhearing a conversation in a restaurant. That person has no liability. But, if Rajaratnam is criminally liable, what distinguishes his case? The fact that he solicited the information. Does that mean that the person hearing a conversation in a restaurant is innocent if they sit still but guilty of a serious crime if they lean slightly in order to hear better?

The law on this point is a mess. I do not mean to express solicitude for Mr. R. I only want to point out that the distinctions in this area of the law are such as would please the Red Queen.