In addition to putting up a fancy new website, Raj Rajaratnam and his lawyers filed a motion today to suppress the government's wiretap evidence.
(Bonus: Check out the glamour shots of Raj)
In a 75-page brief, lawyers for Raj laid out their argument that FBI Special Agent B.J. Kang and the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of Manhattan intentionally misled the court when they sought authorization to secretly listen in on Raj's cell phone.
Among several examples, the lawyers argue Rajaratnam only discussed publicly-available information on phone calls with Roomy Khan, a confidential witness in the case, as opposed to any material insider info.
Moreover, Ms. Khan, they argue, is not even close to being a credible witness because she lied repeatedly in 1999 about passing inside info to the Galleon founder and engaged in numerous illegal acts, including obstruction of justice, both before and while she was cooperating with the government's investigation.
Agent Kang and the government failed to disclose the previous investigation of Roomy Khan and her repeated illegal acts, Raj contends. They also never told the judge who signed the wiretap authorizations about Raj's cooperation in an SEC and FBI insider trading investigation that began in 2001.
Raj's lawyers also argue that Congress has not authorized wiretaps for insider trading cases and, in seeking the authorization, the government falsely relied on wire fraud and money laundering charges, which they had no basis for. The government has until the end of the month to file its answer to the Raj's motion and a hearing on the matter is scheduled for mid-June.
Most legal experts agree the wiretap evidence is critical to the government's case against Raj and others involved in the alleged wide-ranging insider-trading ring. Also, on Raj's fancy new web site is a section called "media inaccuracies," which includes n odd letter from Raj's new PR advisor to Mike Siconolfi, an editor at the Wall Street Journal.
While there are no claims of inaccuracies in the letter, dated April 26, Raj and his counsel seem to be complaining about the Journal's reliance on anonymous sources for their articles. Raj presumes the Journal is receiving all of its information from government leaks and their inherent bias should be disclosed.