Write Review
1,893,805 Total Reviews 3,789 New Reviews
13,799 Users Online

Politics and Religion

Who can explain this? One hundred million bail for insider
marikod 1 Reviews 2290 reads
posted

trading; $4,500, 000 for unlawful sex with a minor.

      Our friend Roman Polanski is now under penthouse arrest in Switzerland, after paying $4.5million  bail to Swiss authorities while awaiting the outcome of his extradition request.

     But the US judge set bail for poor [well, he’s poor now] old Raj Rajaratnam, founder of the Galleon Group Hedge fund at $100 million.  Charged with running an insider trading scheme, he was hit with the biggest bail bond in U.S. history.

       Why the disparity? We all know how odious unlawful sex with a minor is [whether it is cost effective to pursue Polanski in this particular case is a different question] and, if you are unsure all, you have to is watch Nancy Grace who highlights the case most nights so she can say “he raped a child,” look disgusted (a look she patented during the Duke lacrosse case), and enhance her ratings.

       Conversely, some experts say insider trading should not be illegal at all. Insider trading actually has some positive effects on the stock market.

       Don’t tell me flight risk justifies this –Raj isn’t going anywhere; they’ve got his passport. RP, by contrast, will tunnel from his luxury carpeted chalet all the way across the border if given a chance.

     A headline grabbing judge? Or just plain old judicial sophistry again?


-- Modified on 12/4/2009 9:41:34 AM

Related Link: http://http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/19/the-100-million-bail-for-galleons-founder...

dncphil885 reads

First, you cannot expect consistency between two different countries that use two different systems.  Common Law v. Civil Law. Different constitutional standards.  It is like saying you don't understand the consistency between the speed with which capital punishment is carried out in California versus China (or Texas).  There need not be similarities.

Second, Raj's loss of his passport is about as irrelevant to ability to flee as it would be if they took away his overcoat.  Unless he is outfitted with GPS, there are about 7,000 ways to get out of the country if you have a lot of money.  Go for a weekend in Santa Fe or Bar Harbor and you are in Mexico or Canada.  Have a friend pick you up in a boat at the ferry to Staten Island, and you can be outside of U.S. waters before anyone knows it.  And all you need are 10 friends with yachts capable of reaching the Bahamas and the Coast Guard is tracking ten different boats, if they can find one.

Also, while excusing child molestation is something only Acorn would do, the fact remains that Roman had one victim who isn't too upset, versus thousands of thousands of victims still suffering the direct implications.

ReplyQuoteReport
marikod785 reads

If the difference in RP's bail has anything to do with the Swiss being a civil law country, we would expect Bernie's bail to be way in excess of RAj since he committed outright criminal fraud.

     But Bernie's mail was only $10 million. So that shoots down your first theory (and by the way the constitution does not set standards for the amount of bail- other than the 8th amendment prohibtion against excessive bail, there is no "bail clause" that I know about;).

     So basically all you have left is "flight risk." But you ignore that RP has already flown the coop once and has a real incentive to get back to France where he won't be extradicted.

       As for Raj slipping away on a yacht, the guy is about 300 pounds and is not that slippery.Wwhere would he go?

     The true reason - the judge's 401K tanked and he is blaming it on Raj.


ReplyQuoteReport
dncphil821 reads

You asked how the two are consistent. My first comment wasn't a theory. It is just that you can't compare two different systems, which you are doing.

I am not saying that RP's bail was X because Switzerland is a civil law country. I am just saying that you can't compare two systems and expect the same result.  If you want consistency, compare Berne to Geneva and NY to NJ.

As to where Raj would go, I don't know.  That doesn't mean he won't try to flee.  The Max Factor heir skipped to Mexico.  that was smart. People do dumb things. They do dumber things when the panic.  They do really dumb things if they are living a life of luxury and their attorneys say, "Raj, Bubbalah, do you like cinder block in you next office?  Cuz the odds are 7 to 1 you are going to die in prison."  

Nope. Won't do anything dumb then.

The fact that Madoff got lower than Raj does not mean you should look for consistency between New York and Switzerland, but you should ask why Raj is more than Bernie.

There is no bail clause, nor is there an abortion clause, or a hundred other clauses.  However, bail does have constitutional implications that are not relevant "over there."

ReplyQuoteReport
fasteddie511168 reads

If you look at the judicial system overall, there is very little consistency in the amount of bail set on a case by case basis, even if the crimes and the charges are the same.  It depends on the judge; it depends on the city or state; it depends on the social or financial strata that the defendant is in' and yes, very often it depends on the color of skin.

The two bail amounts in these cases are what they are; one has no bearing on the other, regardless of the disparity of the charges.

Compare it to quarterback salaries in the NFL... does ANYONE think that Eli Manning is even HALF the quarterback that his brother Payton is?  Eli's good, Payton's great, yet Eli makes more money that his brother.

Or, you could take the cynic's view that Polanski only fucked one person, where Rajaratnam fucked thousands! :-)

-- Modified on 12/4/2009 3:15:19 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
marikod1188 reads

Most, if not all, US judicial systems have mandatory factors that the judge must consider in setting bail, precisely to avoid setting a completely arbitrary amount. In the federal system for exampl, e

the Bail Reform Act factors to be considered in determining
"whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably
assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community" include:

"the nature and circumstances of the offense charged" (the "Circumstances Factor"); "the history and characteristics of the [defendant]"(the "History Factor"); "the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the [defendant's] release" (the "Danger Factor"); and "the weight of the evidence against the [defendant]" (the "Weight Factor") (collectively, the "Factors").

     I presume the Swiss have similar factors.

          Applying these factors, I see no way that any judge could set RP at $4.5, Bernie at 10 million  and Raj at a 100 million. Clearly the Raj judge missed it and I would expect an appeal and reversal, assuming this is appealable.

ReplyQuoteReport
fasteddie511751 reads

and at that time present evidence that the original bail was too high.

But evidence doesn't include comparing other bail.

And let's be honest, those noble Federal guidelines aside... How many times has an indigent black man been remanded, whereas a white middle or upper class defendant has had a bail set at miniscule fraction of his worth? And of the two, who has more resources to take flight?  Hell, what percentage of black urban defendants do you think even has a passport?

ReplyQuoteReport
dncphil1698 reads

You can't appeal orders that are not part of a final judgment of the case, but you can take a writ before then.

An order affecting one's rights can be reviewed by a higher court, even though it isn't technically an appeal.

Indigents have nothing to lose by skipping.

ReplyQuoteReport
marikod1086 reads

under the Bail Reform Act, so the defendant could seek immediate review of a denial of his motion to reduce bail.

Since a majistrate ordered the 100,000 bail, it may go first to the district court judge and the appeal to the Second Circuit.

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!