美国打击商业犯罪搞“连坐”

    除了已经认罪的六位员工和某些尚未被证明的违法行为（马托玛和斯坦伯格还未认罪），检察官的其余指控都极具争议性。SAC的律师团队由Willkie Farr & Gallagher律师事务所的马丁•克劳斯和Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison律师事务所的丹尼尔•J•克莱默领导。他们在本周一向SAC全体员工发表了一份长达46页的白皮书，对美国证券交易委员会对科恩提起的民事行政诉讼进行了反驳，前者控诉科恩未能尽到监督两位投资组合经理参与惠氏、Elan和戴尔三支股票内幕交易之职。

    此文件尚未被政府驳回。表面看来，这份文件成功地质疑了科恩存在同上述特定交易相关的任何不当行为，并振振有词地鼓吹SAC的合规项目，称它是业界开始最早、最成熟、成本最高昂、影响最深远的此类项目，目前有38名全职雇员从事该工作。据称该项目包括“每天审查”电子邮件和即时通讯信息、100%保留电子数据的政策、限制使用专家网络乃至监控员工通信。确实，这些关键的合规措施大都是在上述起诉所聚焦的数笔交易发生后才实行，但它们实施之时SAC好像也确实还不知道自身会遭遇目前的调查。

    不过，无论SAC的律师们能从巴哈纳纳的诉讼书中发现哪些漏洞，6名投资组合经理的俯首认罪似乎才是他真正想要的，而且已经证据确凿。（事实上，按照现行法律，法官可以只靠一名员工的违法行为就给公司定罪，甚至该员工最后还能被无罪释放！）现在唯一悬而未决的——或者说可以商量的——就是如何处罚，SAC能否以某种形式继续得以生存。也许通过和解程序，例如更换SAC的高管团队，检方会同意放弃起诉。（例如大名鼎鼎的Milberg律师事务所虽然在2006年因为敲诈勒索被集体诉讼，但最后还是逃过一劫。Milberg辞退了3位涉案合伙人，同时缴纳了7,500万美元罚金，诉讼才最后得以和解。）

    从科恩的律师发布的报告来看，科恩本人可能在美国证券交易委员会（SEC）的行政诉讼中受审，后者正力图禁止他继续从事证券业。为了避免自己的公司在刑事案件中遭遇惨败，科恩可能不得不放弃自己在行政诉讼中的全部生机。(财富中文网)

    译者：项航  

    With the exception of the fact that the guilty pleas and the as yet unproven indictments have occurred (Martoma and Steinberg have pleaded not guilty), all the government's accusations are sharply disputed. SAC's lawyers, led by Martin Klotz at Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Daniel J. Kramer at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, have given a sneak peek of what their responses will look like in a 46-page White Paper disseminated to SAC's employees on Monday. It responds to the Securities and Exchange Commission's civil administrative charges against Cohen, whom the commission accuses of having failed to adequately supervise two portfolio managers in connection with their trading in three stocks -- Wyeth, Elan, and Dell.

    The paper -- not yet rebutted, of course, by the government -- succeeds in raising on its face plenty of doubts about any impropriety by Cohen in connection with those particular trades, and it also plausibly touts SAC's compliance program -- which now has 38 full-time employees -- as being one of the earliest, most sophisticated, most expensive, and most far-reaching in the industry. It allegedly includes "daily reviews" of email and IMs; a 100% electronic retention policy; restrictions on the use of expert networks; and even surveillance of employee communications. It is true that most of these key compliance measures were instituted after the trades that are the focus of the indictments, but it also appears to be true that they were instituted before SAC became aware of the current investigation.

    But regardless of whatever holes SAC's lawyers can shoot in Bhrara's peripheral allegations, the guilty pleas of the six portfolio managers are all Bharara seems to need under the current law, and they've already happened. (In fact, under existing law, you can convict a corporation based on an employee's alleged wrongdoing even if the employee is ultimately acquitted!) All that remains to be determined -- and probably negotiated -- are the penalties and whether SAC will be permitted to survive in some form, perhaps through the mechanism of the government agreeing to dismiss the indictment in exchange for SAC's execution of a non-prosecution agreement. (The Milberg class-action law firm survives to this day, for instance, notwithstanding having been indicted on racketeering charges in 2006. After its three indicted partners left the firm, Milberg was allowed to enter a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for a $75 million fine.)

    Though Cohen himself, judging from his lawyers' White Paper, might have a triable case in the SEC's administrative action, where the commission seeks to ban him for life from the securities industry, Cohen may have to trade away whatever fighting chance he has there to avert catastrophe to his firm in the criminal case.