http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...goldman-theft-has-charges-tossed-out-ibrz5tyj "Having rejected a plea deal that carried no jail time, Aleynikov’s conviction carried the possibility of a four-year term. Vance’s prosecutors lost pre-trial motions in Aleynikov’s case and were often criticized by the judge. Jury deliberations were punctuated by repeated requests to review testimony and define words, and two jurors were dismissed after one accused the other of trying to poison her lunch. Any appeal by Vance would probably focus on the language of the New York statutes cited in the indictment, one of which, unlawful use of secret scientific material, was passed in 1967 and was little used before the Aleynikov case. For his part, Aleynikov has taken the fight to Goldman Sachs and the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who arrested him. In federal court in New Jersey, he sued the agents for malicious prosecution and is seeking to have the firm pay for the cost of his defense. Marino, his attorney, said the cost of the defense has topped $7 million."
I'd sue them too because that $7 million defense cost is absolutely outrageous. Aleynikov wasn't found guilty of a crime on two separate instances, so somebody besides him needs to pay for that debacle.
correct me if I am wrong but does in the US not the losing party pay for the legal cost of the winning party?
I thought that "loser pays" is a UK policy. It certainly isn't in the US. Seems like a good idea. Jarndyce v. Jarndyce and all that I guess.
No opinion about who should pay for his legal defense. But certainly the verdict is not an indication of whether wrongdoing has been committed or not. It only meant that the case should not have been tried in criminal court. I do not see how he would get off the hook in a civil suit, however. He stole computer code and offered it to a third party. How this is not theft is not clear to me.
In the US, in general, the loser does not pay. There are exceptions. You can google it. For example, here's the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney's_fees) The losing side does not ordinarily have to pay the winning side's attorney's fees, contrary to popularly held belief. In the United States, the general rule (called the American Rule) is that each party pays only their own attorney's fees, regardless of whether they win or lose. This allows people to bring cases and lawsuits without the fear of incurring excessive costs if they lose the case. In contrast, in England and other countries, the losing side is often required to pay the other side's attorney's fees after losing a trial. Exceptions to the American Rule There are several exceptions to the "American Rule," however, which depend on the type of case you are involved with and the state you live in. The most common exception to the rule occurs when a contract or statute (law) specifically allows for the payment of attorneys' fees by the other side. In addition, a court can sometimes act in the interest of justice and fairness to require one side to pay the attorneys' fees. U.S. courts do have significant discretion when it comes to the awarding of attorneys' fees, and while judges do not generally like departing from the American Rule, they may require a losing side to pay the other's attorneys' fees in certain limited situations. If you're concerned or hopeful that the losing side would have to pay attorneys' fees in your case, it's generally a good idea to check (or ask your lawyer to check) if any exceptions apply to your particular case. Here are the most common exceptions to the American rule. ... http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-losing-side-30337.html Here are some arguments why we don't go to that system here: http://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-United-States-have-a-loser-pays-legal-system
All of those arguments only makes sense for civil cases. It's disgraceful that the FBI allowed itself to be used as Goldman Sachs corporate security.
What a mess the authorities turned this case into....no wonder the $ 7 million in defense costs. My question: Was he worth $1.2 million in annual salary ? Wow !!!!
A terrific programmer is worth at least that to a firm like GS. However, most programmers sell themselves for nothing. "Nothing" is less than 500k/yr. A terrific programmer at GS generates $1B+ in profits. You could get rid of all these clowns in management and just hire programmers and GS would double in profitability. Why do you think most of these guys go and start their own firm? All you see at these firms are students right out of school or what I call "assembly line programmers." I would rate Aleynakohv as a good programmer. A great programmer is as rare as Picasso or Rembrandt. What is funny is, many have never taken a programming course in their life, so they are never even looked at by these firms because they don't make it past the idiots at HR. http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/are-financial-programmers-under-paid.168176/ If on your card it says, Sofware Engineer or Developer, you suck. If you are in the major leagues, it says Artist.