In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Periscope, Photos

SDNY COURTHOUSE, June 21– In the US prosecution of Premium Point Investments hedge funders Anilesh Ahuja and Jeremy Shor, the government doggedly tried to show the jury the so-called sector spread and mid-bid mis-marking scams by which the two defendants allegedly overvalued their portfolios.

  Apparently it worked. But now?

Now on June 21, the day after a legal reality show surrounding SDNY US Attorney Geoffrey Berman and the office, we can report that only days before that Office, after the Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad "errors," admitted others in Ahuja and Shor: "Re: United States v. Anilesh Ahuja, et al. S1 18 Cr. 328 (KPF) Dear Judge Failla: The Government respectfully writes to advise the Court and the parties that certain representations it made to the Court during trial about the Government’s communications with counsel for cooperating witness Amin Majidi prior to Majidi’s guilty plea were wrong. While the Government’s communications with Majidi’s counsel were entirely proper, its recounting of those communications to the Court was partly inaccurate. 1 During trial, the Government produced to defense counsel a draft allocution that Majidi’s counsel had sent to the Government in advance of Majidi’s plea proceeding (the “Draft Allocution”). The Draft Allocution differed from the allocution that Majidi gave (the “Final Allocution”). The Court made clear that draft allocutions received from counsel for cooperating witnesses should have been produced to the defense earlier, pursuant to United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 544 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2008), and directed the Government to review its attorney communications in this case for any additional materials that should be produced to the defense pursuant to Triumph Capital. (Tr. 479). That evening and the following day, Government trial counsel reviewed their archived emails for all communications with attorneys for witnesses in the case, including attorneys for cooperating witnesses, and produced any responsive documents to defense counsel. The Government filed a letter with the Court confirming that it had conducted 1 This letter was in the process of being drafted when counsel for Jeremy Shor filed his June 19, 2020 motion for disclosures in this case. The Court has directed the Government to respond to Shor’s motion by June 22, 2020. The Government expects that this letter and the enclosed exhibit may address Shor’s motion in substantial part, but understands that there are parts of Shor’s letter that will not be addressed herein. The Government respectfully requests that its deadline of June 22, 2020 to respond to those additional parts of Shor’s letter be extended to June 24, 2020. This extension would facilitate the Government’s ability to respond substantively to aspects of Shor’s motion that were not addressed herein. The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew’s Plaza New York, New York 10007 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York Case 1:18-cr-00328-KPF Document 368 Filed 06/19/20 Page 1 of 4 Page 2 this review of communications with counsel for witnesses. (Docket 209). Government trial counsel did not include in their review internal emails that were strictly between Government attorneys. The following week, on June 10, 2019, the Court inquired whether any of the Government counsel had had a conversation with Majidi’s counsel about the Draft Allocution that impacted the substance of the Final Allocution. (Tr. 764). AUSA Naftalis, who handled Majidi’s plea proceeding, recalled that he spoke with Majidi’s counsel on the phone prior to the plea. (Tr. 767). He was not certain when the conversation occurred, but believed it may have been one day before the plea. (Tr. 767). The Court asked whether he recalled the substance of his communication with Majidi’s counsel, and he initially answered, “I don’t recall the substance – I don’t recall the specifics.” (Tr. 767)." Will Judge Failla, like Judge Nathan, ask who is responsible?

  Back on July 11 the jury found both Ahuja and Shor guilty. This came after, on the 4th of July, Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Shor's bid to introduce into evidence portions of the FBI Form 302 interview with James Nimberg. Or maybe it was the text message, introduced into evidence, in which Shor told Ashisha Dole and cooperating witness Majidi, "I’m done giving frank a BJ. Sorry to be crass boss. Back in 3."
 
  On November 25, Judge Failla sentenced Ahuja to 50 months and no forfeiture, after lavishing praise on him and his family. His lawyer requested Otisville, or Canaan in Connecticut and in any event no MCC or MDC. Judge Failla said she would accommodate that. She called Ajuha "less crude" than Shor. She closed by praising Ajuha for the respect he showed.

What is such respect were shown for all defendants and sentencees? What would that look like? It was said that filing during the trial that were not, still, in the public record now will be going forward.  There will also be something on restitution in 90 days. Watch this site. 

  On November 18, Judge Failla sentenced Shor to 40 months in prison. Inner City Press later that day asked Shor if he had any comment he would or could make. Now on November 20 he has added, and we immediately publish: "I still believe, as Former Associate Justice Brandeis said many years ago:  ‘... electric light is the most efficient policeman.’ Louis Brandeis Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States." We'll have more on this.

   U.S. District Court for the Southern District Judge Kathleen Polk Failla requested permission to ask her own questions, as to to clarify for the jury the difference between the bid and "mid" price, between the bid and asked.

  Now on Saturday, June 29 the lawyers for Shor have asked Judge Failla to allow in some evidence - this as other defendants are convicted, with assigned lawyers they say they don't trust, in trials lasting three days, covered here by Inner City Press. The new Shor filing: "Dear Judge Failla: We write on behalf of defendant Jeremy Shor to request the Court’s permission to introduce a single recorded statement made by Amin Majidi to Mr. Shor on December 22, 2015. Mr. Majidi’s statement is relevant to Mr. Shor’s state of mind as to why Mr. Shor continued to work at Premium Point Investments (“PPI”) following his meeting with the Chief Compliance Officer on December 15, 2015; specifically, the statement constitutes evidence that Mr. Shor was led to believe that the pricing practices at PPI were going to improve. We seek to introduce the recording through cross examination of Evan Jay by playing a portion of the audio (the statement by Mr. Majidi and the preceding non-substantive statement by Mr. Shor to identify him as the other participant in the conversation) to Mr. Jay who we believe will be able to identify the voices on the recording. Once verified, we seek to play Mr. Majidi’s statement in open court. We would play the approximately one-minute clip from the December 22, 2015 conversation during our cross examination of Mr. Jay:

[SHOR: You have a vacation coming; I’m starting vacation on Thursday, I’m in tomorrow… (to Mr. Jay only)]

MAJIDI: I mean even, even, even, even, even, you know, it’s, w-, w-, what kills me is that all that, you know, I, I have the ability to, I think to be human and, and fair about things and you know and see positivity in stuff. Like, even, even, like even the conversation you, you had with, with Evan, which, you know, one level, and you know I see you sitting there with the compliance guy, my, my, I’m pins and needles, and, s-, stomach acid is going crazy, then I get pulled into a three-hour meeting when I was coming out and joking and thanking and dreaming of sushi, I see positives come out of that. We, we fixed one trade, we show we’re making an effort, we’ll clean up the book, mark it down for the end of the year. So I’m appreciative of something that caused me a lot of distress, I, I know there’s something good will come out of it. So, what I’m, what I’m, again I’m disappointed that even despite, you know, the shitty year and stuff like that, I think your mindset is that we can’t, we can’t salvage. But, but, it’s like, shit, these, these things are, these careers and relationships are long term. Mr. Majidi’s statement to Mr. Shor constitutes relevant, admissible evidence for at least two reasons. First, Mr. Majidi’s assurances—that “something good will come out of” Mr. Shor’s actions and that his actions caused PPI to “fix[] one trade” and would cause PPI to “clean up the book” and “mark it down for the end of the year”—are relevant to Mr. Shor’s state of mind in December 2015 and thereafter because he was told that his concerns were going to be addressed. Through recent testimony, the Government has suggested to the jury that Mr. Shor is guilty of the charged offenses in part because he continued to participate in wrongful conduct after his meeting with Mr. Jay. Specifically, the following testimony was elicited during the redirect examination of Mr. Majidi: Q. Is Mr. Shor talking here about going to -- AOC is where Frank Dinucci worked; right? A. Yes. Q. What's PT short for? A. Performance Trust. Q. This is approximately a month after you saw him go into the compliance officer's office? A. Yes. Q. Did Mr. Shor mark the Mortgage Credit Fund for month end December 2015? A. Yes. Q. Did he also do so for January 2016? A. Yes. (Tr. 2844: 9-16.)

The Government also suggested yesterday through redirect examination of Mr. Dinucci that reporting issues to Compliance does not obviate past or continued criminal activity. (Tr. 3699: 6-11.) While that generally may be true, Mr. Majidi’s statement is relevant..." We'll have more on this.

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for