Last year, hedge fund founder Neil Ahuja was convicted of ripping off Anthony Scaramucci (among others) and sentenced to three-and-a-half years in jail. Turns out some of the securities held by his Premium Point Investments may not have been worth as much as it said, and its performance numbers may have been a wee bit optimistic. Or so said former portfolio manager Amin Majidi when he pleaded guilty to his role in the alleged fraud in 2018.
What did he say? Well, that the scam went on way longer than originally believed, that he had done less wrong and Premium Point trader and fellow defendant Jeremy Shor had done more wrong, and that Majidi knew that what he was doing was wrong.
All pretty standard stuff. It’s just that Ahuja’s lawyers apparently only got a first draft of the speech without all of the above in it, and therefore didn’t know the right questions to ask when they cross-examined Majidi, and so the whole thing’s blown.
“As a result of a [Freedom of Information Act] request to the Executive Office of United States Attorneys that the defense never should have had to make, we know that the government concealed significant evidence, made material misrepresentations to the Court, and, months later, failed to correct them even when it was clear to the government that they were not true,” Ahuja's attorneys wrote in a letter.
Not so, sayeth the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office! Or like, yea, mostly true, but not in any mean-spirited, meaningful, get-out-of-jail free kind of way.
“While the government’s communications with Majidi’s counsel were entirely proper, its recounting of those communications to the court was partly inaccurate,” according to a June 19 letter from Audrey Strauss, who represents the federal government in the case. “Some of the answers provided to the Court during trial were incorrect, albeit unintentionally. Again, this should have been brought to the Court’s and the parties’ attention in March. While these mistakes were not made in bad faith, and while they did not prejudice the defendants at trial and do not implicate the verdict against either of them, they should not have happened.”