Lawyers Prosecuting Credit Suisse Banker Ambivalent About Whether Or Not They're Going For A Guilty Verdict
Former Credit Suisse investment banker Hafiz Naseem pleaded not guilty yesterday to allegations that he was "the mastermind" behind a $7 million insider-trading ring in which he leaked details about nine deals that Credit Suisse was an adviser on, including the $45 billion leveraged buyout of TXU. The prosecution's foolproof rebuttal? Naseem had a gambling problem, and was up to his toes in $5,000 of debt, which is totally a plausible reason for committing a $7 million felony. Geniuses. (A lawyer for Naseem has denied these accusations as well, saying that while the $5,000 debt part of the story is true, the gambling part is not. It was a heroin thing, and was taken care of in a completely legal fashion.)
Comments
Alleged felonies in the energy business???? I am shocked !! Shocked I say !!!
What is Oscar Wyatt up to these days?
Posted by: Bad Leg Quezada | November 27, 2007 12:00 PM
It was a heroin thing, and was taken care of in a completely legal fashion.
Posted by: nice bess | November 27, 2007 12:03 PM
has nothing to do with the energy industry except by coincidence that this dude was an energy banker
also, doesn't the defense usually rebut the charges, not the prosecution?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 27, 2007 12:03 PM
"also, doesn't the defense usually rebut the charges, not the prosecution?"
yes, and taking caring of heroin-related debt is generally done in an illegal way.
Posted by: go read DealBook | November 27, 2007 12:05 PM
Sure are a lot of "coincidences" in that energy business.
Since 2001, If the energy industry found as many bbls and mmbtus equal to the amount of fines the industry has paid and hard time its former employees will have to serve....well..... there would be no energy crisis.
What's Jeff Skilling up to these days?
Posted by: The Ghost of J. D. Rockefeller | November 27, 2007 12:10 PM
if i am not being obtuse,, 12:05, you are suggesting that "The prosecution's foolproof rebuttal" is a joke based on switching the prosecution with the defense, and not a typo, is that correct?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 27, 2007 12:11 PM
um, yes, 12:11, that's exactly what i'm doing.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 27, 2007 12:12 PM
12:11 you just blew my mind!!!
Posted by: HAM'05 | November 27, 2007 12:13 PM
What is CS paying these clowns? $5,000 is debt? If a guy that can't handle a $5,000 debt is involved in sensitive information that can lead to charges like this, one of two things is the the case (or both): 1) CS woefully underpays; 2) CS needs to better manage their information.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 27, 2007 12:22 PM
$5,000.00 buys a lot of Axe Body Spray for those Afghan weddings.
Posted by: Nashunul Geograffic | November 27, 2007 12:28 PM
maybe all his loot is tied up in illiquid mortgage investments ... wouldnt be the first time an investor was driven to drastic measures to fund his ongoing operations because of market factors
Posted by: Anonymous | November 27, 2007 12:38 PM
Saw "Fargo" again the other night on the AMC and this thread reminded me of the scene where the character played by William H. Macy, the car salesman, is getting GMAC to buy his "paper" on car sales that never happened. Pure genius.
Posted by: Okey-Dokey, All-Righty Then, You Betcha! | November 27, 2007 12:49 PM
When I was 7 years old, my grandfather sat me on his knee and gave me the greatest business advice I have ever received. He said 'Don't do business with the people that fuck camels'.
Posted by: To Wit | November 27, 2007 01:44 PM