为何古普塔丑闻不会伤及麦肯锡

    消息首次曝光是在大约一年半之前。当时，古普塔突然辞去高盛集团董事一职【他也从宝洁公司（Procter Gamble）董事会辞职】。麦肯锡公司的许多人援引“无罪假定”原则，对古普塔表示支持——但我们依然可以观察到此事引发的震荡。今年3月份，真实的窃听内容于曝光，麦肯锡公司决定彻底切断跟古普塔的关系。当前的常务董事鲍达民亲自致电古普塔，称他如今被公司列为不受欢迎的人。不用说，古普塔高兴不起来。

    这引发了我的最后一个观点。倘若这个丑闻没有对高盛或麦肯锡造成巨大影响（尽管这是一些人的迫切愿望），那么它对古普塔本人意味着什么呢？我想说的是，情势只会变得原来越糟糕。上周三发布的对古普塔的起诉书证据相当确凿。高盛董事会的电话会议刚一结束，这家伙连电话都没来得及放下，就单键拨号联系拉贾拉特南，（据称）向其吐露了相关消息。有一次，整个过程花费了16秒。另一次花费了23秒（古普塔现年62岁，如果随着时间的流逝，他失足了一两次，那就让他歇一歇吧）。

    具体来说，政府指控古普塔曾在2008年9月份向拉贾拉特南透露沃伦•巴菲特斥资50亿美元投资高盛的消息，随后拉贾拉特南迅速买入高盛股票。其二，同年10月份，古普塔向拉贾拉特南秘密传达了高盛集团上市之后首次出现季度亏损的消息。

    据《华尔街日报》（the Wall Street Journal）报道，古普塔的律师盖里•纳夫塔利斯的辩护立场非常鲜明。古普塔“没有进行过任何证券交易，没有为拉贾拉特南提供过内幕信息，让他从事交易，也没有从中获得任何作为投资报酬的分红，”纳夫塔利斯说。

    以下是我这个“非正规法庭”对这些申诉的评判。其一：他或许没有进行过任何证券交易。这对他来说太糟糕了。要是他进行过交易，他或许可以使用一些利润支付自己的辩护费用。其二：几乎完全可以肯定的是，他告诉了拉贾拉特南一些他不应该透露的消息。比如，2008年10月24日，针对拉贾拉特南的窃听发现，他对一位同事说：“我昨天从高盛集团一位董事那里听说该集团即将报告每股亏损2美元的消息。华尔街却认为高盛将获得每股2.5美元的盈利。”

    对古普塔的辩护最有趣的部分显然跟“利益”一词的含义有关。纳夫塔利斯不断重申，由于古普塔从未从拉贾拉特南那里收受过任何金钱或直接利益，因此不可能犯有内幕交易罪。在本案中，纳夫塔利斯是一位律师，也仅仅是一位律师而已。因为从技术上来说，古普塔是内部的一位知情人，他很可能被控犯有“经典”意义上的内幕交易罪，根据这一定义，金钱利益是有罪的必要前提。但在其他类型的内幕交易案件（所谓的“挪用”型）中有过先例，案件涉及的“个人利益”远远不止金钱那么简单。

    这让我想起了一个关于古普塔以及麦肯锡公司的一个明显事实。不同于华尔街那些只想获得金钱的交易员，古普塔是一位咨询师。咨询师所看重的是影响力，而非钞票。对于古普塔来说，不幸的是，他可以施加影响力的那个人如今正在蹲监狱。要是他们最终落脚于同一个监狱分区的话，拉贾拉特南或许能够投桃报李，回报他的恩情。

    译者：任文科

    News of this story first broke almost a year and a half ago, when Gupta abruptly stepped down from Goldman's board. (He also stepped down from his board seat at Procter & Gamble (PG) Many at McKinsey supported Gupta in that "he's innocent until proven guilty" kind of way—but the shock was still palpable. When actual wiretaps emerged this March, the firm decided to cut off relations with Gupta entirely. Current managing director Dominic Barton personally called Gupta to tell him he was now persona non grata at the firm. Needless to say, Gupta was not happy.

    Which brings me to my final point. If this doesn't mean much for Goldman or McKinsey, despite the urgent wishes of some, what does it mean for Gupta himself? I'd say it's only going to get worse form here. The indictment against Gupta, released this morning, is pretty damning. The man could barely put the phone down after telephonic board meetings ended at Goldman before speed-dialing Rajaratnam to (allegedly) give him the news. In one instance, it took him 16 seconds. In another 23 seconds. (The man is 62. Give him a break if he loses a step or two as time passes.)

    Specifically, the government has alleged that Gupta told Rajaratnam about Warren Buffett's $5 billion investment in Goldman in September 2008, after which Rajaratnam quickly bought Goldman shares. Second, that Gupta tipped Rajaratnam about Goldman's first-ever quarterly loss as a public company in October of that same year.

    According to the Wall Street Journal, Gupta's lawyer Gary Naftalis has drawn a very clear line in the sand when it comes to his defense. Gupta "did not trade in any securities, did not tip Mr. Rajaratnam so he could trade, and did not share in any profits as part of any quid pro quo," Mr. Naftalis said.

    Here's where this kangaroo court comes out on those claims. One: he probably didn't trade in any securities. That's too bad for him. If he had, he might be using some of those profits to pay for his own defense. Two: he almost certainly did tell Rajaratnam things he shouldn't have. On October 24, 2008, for example, wiretaps had Rajaratnam telling a colleague "I heard yesterday from somebody who's on the board of Goldman Sachs that they are going to lose $2 per share. The Street has them making $2.50."

    The most interesting part of Gupta's apparent defense revolves around what one means by the word "profit." Naftalis keeps repeating that because Gupta never received any money or direct benefits from Rajaratnam, he can't possibly be guilty of insider trading. Naftalis is being a lawyer here, and nothing more. Because he was technically an insider, Gupta will likely be charged in the "classical" definition of insider trading, where pecuniary benefit is a necessary prerequisite to guilt. But there's precedent in other kinds of insider trading cases—the so-called "misappropriation" type—in which "personal benefits" can mean much more than money.

    Which brings me to the obvious fact about Gupta, and, by extension, McKinsey. Unlike the Wall Street trader who wants nothing but money, Gupta was a consultant. And the coin of consultants is influence, not cash. Unfortunately for Gupta, the man whose influence he was currying is now in jail. Perhaps Rajaratnam will be able to do him some favors if they find themselves on the same cellblock.