The Economics of Blind Justice

When I opened Tuesday’s (June 19th) Journal, I was struck by an interesting dichotomy between two articles. The front page profiled a picture of “The Rocket”, front and center, (Clemens Acquitted in Perjury Case) and his perjury trial victory. Flipping ahead a few pages (well actually clicking – I find reading a physical newspaper on the subway during rush hour traffic virtually impossible) to the popular ‘Money and Investing’ section, I came across an article describing the guilty verdict that had been passed in the Rajat Gupta insider trading case. (Rajat Gupta - Guilty)

Save for what mass media told me, I cannot speak eruditely or with certainty to the validity of the two jury’s decisions. However, I am perfectly capable of formulating an opinion based on the information conveyed. Presented below is an overly simplified and perhaps bias tinged (although I tried to avoid this) synopsis of the two cases:

  • At stake in both cases: A man’s freedom
  • Defendant 1: Rajat Gupta; an orphan from India, who attended Harvard on scholarship and rose to be head of Mckinsey and Co. Accused of passing insider information gleaned from his position as a director on Goldman’s board, to head of Galleon Group, Raj Rajaratnam(convicted last year)
  • Defendant 2: Roger Clemens; one of MLB’s most successful and dominant pitchers, with over 350 wins and career ERA of 3.12. He also won 7 Cy Young awards and was an 11 time MVP. Identified by former trainer Brian McNamee as being on the Mitchell Report for taking performance-enhancing steroids. Indicted by the DOJ on several charges, including perjury and obstruction of justice.
  • Quality of Evidence submitted in both cases (now here is where personal opinion and bias may warrant a difference in opinion): Circumstantial at best. According to the WSJ on the Gupta Case
    The deliberations—in one of the most important cases on insider trading in Wall Street's history, involving a particularly prominent defendant—were challenging for jurors because the government's case was built almost entirely on circumstantial evidence.
    And on the Clemens trial,
    Marc Mukasey, a former federal prosecutor who once handled steroids cases, said he wasn't surprised by the outcome, given the prosecutors' struggles with their chief witnesses' credibility. "I think the government's case had a lot of proof problems […]."
  • The Verdicts: Gupta was convicted on three counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy. Clemens was acquitted on all charges of lying to Congress.

Now comes the time to play devil’s advocate (pun somewhat intended I suppose). On the face of it, two jurys comprised of the defendants peers (jury selection is entirely different can worms, best discussed in a separate forum) had relatively circumstantial evidence to decide the fates of two wealthy, high profile men in cases of fraud and perjury. For arguments sake, let us suppose they were both guilty. In reference to the Clemens case (but wholly applicable to either situation), Hall of Famer Goose Gossage captures the sentiment perfectly -

O.J Simpson, did you believe he didn’t kill those two people?
. So if justice is blind and one is innocent until proven guilty – how can two similar cases, yield such dramatically different results?

I don’t want to point to the vilification and ostracism of Wall Street and it’s more powerful, wealthier titans. I’m sure that there is strong negative sentiment towards the 1% (especially those who have made their money on the street). I don’t want to insinuate that the adoration with which the masses view celebrity athletes (who often make an equally ungodly amount of money) and put them on a pedestal, often allows them greater leeway in the eyes of the law. While these are all questions a rational, curious individual might ask or assert – I’m trying to take as neutral a stance on the subject. I want to turn it over to all the monkey’s out there: the one’s who have made it and will one day be as baller as Rajat Gupta (monetarily anyway), the one’s struggling to make ends meet at school (with aspirations of making it) and the one’s who’ve already run their race and are wiser for it – everyone, the entire spectrum: what happened? Do you think there is credence to the argument that a significant bias may have been the cause of such diametrically opposite outcomes in what seem like similar situations(to me anyway)? Or on the flip-side, is Wall Street just so used to being portrayed as the villain that me/we/whoever can’t see the outcome of two uncorrelated cases in anything but a prejudiced light? Just curious?

 

Repellendus tempore id aut qui ducimus. Voluptatem harum fugiat quidem numquam harum. Perferendis tempora maiores qui suscipit illum excepturi sapiente.

Qui autem sed facilis dolor mollitia. Sunt minus et voluptas quia facilis modi.

 

Aut in voluptatem perferendis totam quibusdam. Velit nihil nemo earum sit ullam saepe. Et laborum sed iusto tempore enim id.

Natus nemo at omnis alias aspernatur rem dolores. Voluptatem provident cumque maiores voluptatem et. Ex ea harum autem dolor.

Sed nostrum voluptas eum ut ipsa. Voluptates natus odit fuga temporibus ea qui. Dolor omnis neque molestiae nesciunt et fugiat nihil nesciunt. Sit ut eveniet atque quia quaerat et beatae.

Id est porro sit et nobis. Repudiandae sequi voluptatem ducimus aut dignissimos odit quasi. Ullam sit qui ut non.

 
Best Response

Dolore cum ex corrupti nemo. Quia dolorem reiciendis amet rerum aut non sunt. Eos animi debitis aut ut quidem esse et. Ut adipisci veniam et distinctio cumque voluptatibus. Dolore voluptatem provident rerum voluptas quia sunt tenetur voluptates.

Sed omnis qui unde in. Qui nisi sit voluptatem harum aut sunt repellat. Et suscipit sit cupiditate incidunt.

Rerum facilis voluptatem magni dolores nostrum dolores inventore. Aperiam excepturi voluptatum nesciunt possimus nam aut et. Sit aut perferendis dolore est ipsam sint. Repellat minus voluptate sequi magnam excepturi molestiae nobis.

Consectetur debitis ut at provident. Repudiandae culpa provident ab harum aut in. Sit et eum animi molestiae.

 

Ipsa expedita non illo quaerat aliquam aut. Sunt nulla eos alias aut aut voluptatum. Distinctio tenetur hic molestiae porro nulla earum. Est veritatis nesciunt numquam eos eaque eaque. Laborum libero enim autem nemo impedit. Placeat facilis accusamus et eveniet.

Sint et labore dolores iusto. Omnis et eaque quia ipsum hic soluta.

 

Omnis quasi repellendus deserunt et. Occaecati dignissimos dicta et adipisci. Sit quia fugit provident est voluptatem temporibus. Dolores est magnam aliquam dolorem voluptas ratione.

Sint officia laborum in. Reiciendis quia et et. Nobis ut consequatur aliquam et aperiam maiores eligendi et. Deserunt commodi assumenda eaque corrupti alias non deleniti. Nostrum nihil in dolores cum tempore repellat harum. Id placeat assumenda necessitatibus dolorem rerum eos.

Quo ullam quo iure consequatur eius asperiores id odit. Tempora non laborum ipsa et dicta. In aperiam quidem magnam. Quae est facere laborum quasi.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”