When the law caught up with Rajat Gupta

Share  ·   Comment (6)   ·   print   ·  
Mr Rajat Gupta must be regretting those phone calls to Raj Rajaratnam
Mr Rajat Gupta must be regretting those phone calls to Raj Rajaratnam

Mark Twain is quoted to have said “Laws control the lesser man; right conduct controls the greater one”. It is unfortunate that Mr Rajat Gupta, former CEO of McKinsey, came out the lesser man in the insider trading swoop by US regulators.

A jury of eight women and four men convicted Mr Gupta of conspiracy and three counts of securities fraud related to trading in Goldman Sachs stock by Mr Raj Rajaratnam’s Galleon Hedge Fund.

They found that Mr Gupta told Mr Rajaratnam that Mr Warren Buffett was investing $5 billion in Goldman, and that the bank was losing money for the November 2008 quarter.

There was too close a coincidence between the phone-calls made and the trades placed by Mr Rajaratnam for the jury to ignore.

Over-enthusiastic reporters are already labelling this as the greatest victory for US prosecutors since Ivan Boesky was convicted in 1987. The debate on racism in the US never seems to die; some enthusiastic supporters of the former head of McKinsey said he became a victim of racism, and that there were scores of others who had made the phone calls similar to the one that proved to be costly for Mr Gupta but were let off.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of this argument, the US legal system seems to be the only victor in this episode.

SEBI regulations

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) drafted insider trading regulations for India in 1992 and has been amending them at regular intervals.

It defines an insider as a person who is, or was, connected with the company, or is deemed to have been connected with the company and is reasonably expected to have access to unpublished, price-sensitive information in respect of securities of a company, or has received, or has had access to such unpublished price-sensitive information.

Price-sensitive information means any information that relates directly or indirectly to a company and which, if published, is likely to materially affect the price of securities of the company.

SEBI says instances of such information are periodical financial results of the company, intended declaration of dividends (both interim and final), issue of securities or buy-back of securities, any major expansion plans or execution of new projects, amalgamation, mergers or takeovers, disposal of the whole or substantial part of the undertaking and significant changes in policies, plans or operations of the company.

The Regulations provide detailed guidelines on codes of conduct to be followed by all the players in the market. In the tumultuous world of the bourses, where everyone enters with an eye on the gains that can be made, it is natural that one succumbs to the guiles of price-sensitive information.

While Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh made a name for themselves by working around market regulations, there has been no high-profile case of insider trading.

Stern measures

Some companies and their promoters were proven guilty but the punishment meted out was either banning them from the market for a period of time, or a monetary penalty.

The Consent Orders that SEBI introduced were gleefully accepted by many a wrong-doer. For instance, in mid-May, SEBI passed a consent order in favour of Educomp Solutions settling a violation of Code of Corporate Disclosure Practices for Prevention of Insider Trading in Schedule II under Regulation 12 (2) of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992, for Rs 10 lakh.

SEBI should rethink on settling serious cases of insider trading by accepting a cheque from the accused, as this takes away the impact of the offence.

A clear-cut rule in the recently amended Consent Order rules, capping a limit at which offences such as insider trading could be settled through consent, could be a useful start. To critics of SEBI, this would prove that it means business.

In the Galleon insider trading episode, it is apparent that the amounts involved were colossal and the players were not mom-and-pop entities in the markets. The jury probably wanted to prove that no one in the US is larger than the law.

In hindsight, Mr Gupta must be regretting making those phone-calls to the owner of the Galleon hedge fund. As for the other offenders, it appears only a matter of time before the law catches up with them.

(The author is a Bangalore-based chartered accountant)

(This article was published on June 21, 2012)
XThese are links to The Hindu Business Line suggested by Outbrain, which may or may not be relevant to the other content on this page. You can read Outbrain's privacy and cookie policy here.


I have no reason to support Mr Gupta,I did not even know his name before this case. There are huge problems with this case. First. The law on insider trading is very murky and grey and has been rewritten many times. Second: The SEC itself has gone back and forth about expert networks Third: While India might differentiate between fiduciary insider trading and non-fiduciary, the US has closed the gap. Fourth: US case law has become very murky as to what constitutes a benefit. Fifth: Galleon was not just any hedge fund but an important client. There were many former Goldmanites at Galleon. There were many Goldman tipsters. Sixth: Gupta was not recorded giving any tip or making any trade. Seventh: The circumstantial evidence could be interpreted many ways. Eighth: The Gvt got the wiretap permit pre-textually. No more space and I haven't even begun on due process, jury selection, and the media framing of the case.

from:  Lila Rajiva
Posted on: Jun 21, 2012 at 21:20 IST

I do not think there is anything racist about Gupta getting caught and convicted. The person who caught him is also Indian. The problem is that the US legal system does not have the capacity to catch everyone and I wish they did. In going to trial he was still thinking he can get away with what he did. Remember that people involved in an insider chain are putting the general public at a great disadvantage.

from:  Hisham
Posted on: Jun 21, 2012 at 22:17 IST

The case was a travesty on many levels, not least because the insider trading jurisprudence is very murky, and the evidence was circumstantial. In addition, evidence going to the crux of the defense was kept from the jury, the media tried the case, the jury confused it with Galleon and hung Rajaratnam's crimes on Gupta. It would behove you to read the facts of the case and the jurisprudence surrounding it carefully before repeating what is emanating from the media establishment.

from:  Lila Rajiva
Posted on: Jun 22, 2012 at 00:41 IST

Anyhow Gupta is an American. If there is Racism in America he has to face it .he asked for it taking American citizenship.

from:  s.venkat
Posted on: Jun 22, 2012 at 15:37 IST

The US Law and the Jury are correct. But the regret is Mr. Rajat Gupta is a role model for every aspiring Indian. The dream has a setback now.

from:  Sridharan
Posted on: Jun 22, 2012 at 20:14 IST


You must be kidding. Insider trading is the business model on Wall Street. As for Bharara being Indian, he was likely chosen just so as to make it more palatable to Indians. Obama was put in place for the same reason. Much good that did. Why is insider trading being framed as South Asian? No list of the top 100 villains of the financial crisis had Gupta anywhere on them. Those people are all walking free. Two South Asians get jail time. Wake up. Even if Gupta is guilty as charged, there are VERY many bigger offenders, and insider trading itself is marginal to what caused the financial crisis, most of which is LEGAL. Gupta was offered up as a appease the American masses about unemployment and divert anger toward foreigners and outsourcing. His McKinsey background makes him a rich symbolic target. People think they are "getting" Goldman by taking him down. They are really protecting Goldman.

from:  Lila Rajiva
Posted on: Jun 23, 2012 at 04:51 IST
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor
Track your company

Follow us on...

Today's Poll
Is the decision of Congress Chief Ministers to boycott PM functions justified?
Can't say

This week, we acknowledge various instances of good customer service »

Tweets @businessline


Exchange Rate

Dollar Spot Forward Rate

Open-Ended Mutual Funds

MCX-SX Currency Futures

NSE Currency Futures



Recent Article in Opinion

India Inc's debt troubles

The debt pile of Indian companies ... »

Comments to: Copyright © 2014, The Hindu Business Line.