Ex-Intel exec pleads guilty to insider trading
Admits outing Intel earnings, WiMAX plans
Former Intel executive Rajiv Goel has pleaded guilty to two charges of conspiracy and securities fraud in connection with the Galleon insider trading case. Goel is the tenth person to plead guilty in the case, which the FBI and the US attorney's office in Manhattan call the largest hedge fund inside trading case in US history.
On Monday, the US attorney's office for the Southern District of New York announced that Goel pleaded guilty to passing insider information to Raj Rajaratnam, founder and managing director of Galleon Group, a $7bn New York hedge fund. In October, Rajaratnam, Goel, and three others were arrested and charged with insider trading involving Galleon. Those charged also included Robert Moffat, the former senior vice president and general manager of IBM’s Systems and Technology Group.
In total, 22 people have been charged in the case.
Rajaratnam, 52, was ranked number 559 on Forbes magazine’s most recent list of the world’s wealthiest people, with a net worth of $1.3 billion. Goel was the director of strategic investments in Intel’s treasury department. He took a leave of absence from Intel following his arrest and later left the company.
According to the US attorney and FBI wiretaps, Goel provided Rajaratnam with inside information on Intel's quarterly earnings in April 2007. In 2008, the US attorney says, he also provided inside information on the joint venture between WiMAX outfit Clearwire and Sprint Nextel, which was eventually backed by a $1bn investment from Intel. Goel and Rajaratnam met in the 1980s while attending the same business school.
“I cannot express how sorry I am for my conduct,” Goel, 51, said in court on Monday, according to The New York Times. “I intend to do the right thing.”
Rajaratnam has pleaded not guilty and is currently out on bail. Robert Moffat, who left IBM in the wake of his arrest, has also denied charges against him in the case. ®
"Amoral rather than admirable."
Careful there mate. I was raised amongst some pretty hard liners who would have some real objection to what you just said. (Deep, deep, deep conservative/capitalist/libertarian territory.)
What you may find hard to understand is that they are moral people. Their entire lives are lived in the service of very strict morals to which they are unswervingly dedicated. It is simply that their morals are completely and utterly different from yours or mine. To them, anyone who isn’t hard line conservative/capitalist/libertarian is immoral, trying to corrupt them, weaken them and steal from them. These people have a very defined sense of right and wrong, but it largely revolves around the idea of “what is mine is mine, what is yours is yours.” The ownership of (and right to) property/money/etc. is as deeply important to them as egalitarianism (and the right to live your life as you choose) is to me.
It’s all a lot greyer than that, too. For example, I believe in the right to own property/money/etc. I believe that this something worth defending, but I certainly view other rights as far more important. The democratic right to participate in one’s government is probably number one on my list. This is followed very closely by freedom of speech, assembly, religion, sexual orientation, right to privacy and other things that allow us to believe what we choose to believe. My morals say that it is from these rights and freedoms that all others flow. I view the right to own property, earn wealth and improve one’s station in life as an extension of those other rights. If we need to temporarily suspend, suppress or limit the right to hold property or earn wealth in order to defend these other rights and freedoms, I find this an acceptable trade off.
The conservative/capitalist/libertarians I was raised with believe in these things as well, but in a sense almost completely backward. To them, the single most important right is that of owning property and earning wealth. So long as a man has the right to improve his station in life all other rights flow from this as a natural consequence. They believe it so very deeply they are often willing to suppress all other rights and freedoms in order to defend that which they hold most dear.
To the conservative/capitalist/libertarians, I am thusly evil, because I would willingly suppress those rights they hold most dear in order to preserve that which I hold most dear. And as much as I try not to, I do tend to view them in the same light for the same reasons.
So the result of my long rant is that while you might call the people involved in things like Insider Trading “immoral,” there is every chance that according to their own belief systems, what they did was not only okay but actually Good and Right.
Isn’t moral relativism fun?
Translation maybe required?
“I cannot express how sorry I am for my conduct,” Goel, 51 = "SHIT! Oh no - I've been caught!"
How many more are there?
@"Goel is the tenth person to plead guilty in the case" and "In total, 22 people have been charged in the case"
It makes me wonder how many companies have cases of insider trading that are never caught? I wonder how many of the millionaires walking around today wouldn't be millionaires if they were caught for all illegal deals they ever did?
We will never know of course, but given how ruthlessly Narcissist some of these high up power hungry people are, its a very interesting question, because we are so often led to believe these people are admirable role models. When it seems so often the case, their whole attitude to other humans is amoral rather than admirable. :(