Fox Business Network: Rajaratnam's Attorneys Plotting Aggressive Appeals Strategy

FOX Business Network (FBN) Senior Correspondent Charlie Gasparino reports that the attorneys for Galleon Group founder Raj Rajaratnam are plotting to appeal Rajaratnam's insider-trading conviction because “the way in which the government went about getting the wiretaps has been controversial.” Gasparino reports that “the government's application to wiretap conversations between Rajaratnam and government informants left out important pieces of information that might have persuaded a federal judge not to grant the wiretap application in the first place.” Excerpts from the report are below, courtesy of Fox Business Network. The entire report can be accessed here. On how Raj Rajaratnam's attorneys are attempting to appeal the conviction:“Rajaratnam's attorneys at the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld will try and show that the government's application to wiretap conversations between Rajaratnam and government informants left out important pieces of information that might have persuaded a federal judge not to grant the wiretap application in the first place.” On why legal experts believe the appeal might work:“The way in which the government went about getting the wiretaps has been controversial. Federal Judge Richard Holwell said it was ‘particularly disturbing' that government prosecutors left out of application the past criminal records of one of the informants who was recorded providing Rajaratnam with insider tips. Holwell called it a ‘glaring omission' for federal prosecutors to omit from the application the fact that Rajaratnam had been subject of a past investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, where he gave a deposition and generated documents and testimony from other witnesses. The problem for the government, according to people close to the defense, is that in order to obtain a wiretap, prosecutors and agents in the FBI must show that they've exhausted other investigatory methods to make their case. Howell said by leaving out these details, there is a ‘substantial preliminary showing that the government recklessly or knowingly made a misleading statement or omission.'”