RecordLens
Menu

Claim review. Market conduct

Contradicted

A reliable and applicable record states the opposite.

On appeal Raj Rajaratnam argued that the FBI wiretaps used against him were unlawfully authorized and that his conviction should be reversed.

About
Galleon Group LLC
Claim made by
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, court filing
Published
24 June 2013
Original
United States v. Rajaratnam
Evidence score
91 How it was scored
Last reviewed
25 October 2026

Why this label

Rajaratnam's appeal challenged the wiretap evidence and asked the court to reverse. The Second Circuit rejected that challenge. It held that the district court properly applied the Franks v. Delaware framework and that the alleged misstatements and omissions in the wiretap application did not require suppressionS5. The opinion ends by affirming the October 2011 judgment of convictionS5. A reliable and applicable record states the opposite of the proposition that the wiretaps were unlawful and the conviction should fall. The challenge failed and the conviction stands.

Current procedural position

Appeal decided on 24 June 2013, conviction affirmed, finalS5.

Record supporting the assessment

the District Court did not err by applying the analytical framework of Franks
S5 Tier A US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States v. Rajaratnam, 24 June 2013

Conflicting or limiting record

No record located that conflicts with this assessment.

Evidence score: 91 of 100

The score grades how well the record establishes this assessment. It is not a score of Galleon Group LLC. Score = source authority + directness + corroboration + procedural accuracy + currency + reproducibility.

ComponentPointsMaxReason
Source authorityIs the source competent to establish the proposition?3030A federal appellate opinion is the competent record on the wiretap challenge.
DirectnessDoes the source state the proposition or only discuss adjacent facts?1820The opinion states the holding and the affirmance directly.
CorroborationDo independent records support the same material point?1115The US Attorney release and the SEC release reflect the same final conviction.
Procedural accuracyDoes the record settle the procedural state the claim describes?1515The appeal is decided and the judgment affirmed.
CurrencyHas the record been checked against later developments?910Checked to October 2026, with no further reversal found.
ReproducibilityCan a reader locate the passage and repeat the assessment?810The opinion text is public, read through a court report page.
Total91100

Timeline

  1. Appeal argued at the Second CircuitS5
  2. Court affirms the conviction and rejects the wiretap challengeS5

Related cases

  • United States v. Raj RajaratnamUS District Court for the Southern District of New York and US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Criminal. Appeal docket 11-4416-cr.Stage: Final. Conviction affirmed on 24 June 2013S5
    • Sentenced to 11 years, US$10 million fine, US$53,816,434 forfeitureS3
    • Second Circuit affirms the convictionS5

Revision history

  • Assessment first published with label Contradicted.

Have a record that changes this assessment? See corrections and responses.

Sources

  1. S5Tier A United States v. RajaratnamUS Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Court judgment. 24 June 2013.Supports the affirmance of the conviction and the rejection of the wiretap challenge under the Franks framework. Read through a court report page.
  2. S3Tier A Galleon Management Founder Raj Rajaratnam Sentenced in Manhattan Federal Court to 11 Years in Prison for Insider TradingUS Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York. Government press release. 13 October 2011.Supports the 11 May 2011 conviction on all 14 counts, the 11 year sentence, the US$10 million fine and the US$53,816,434 forfeiture. Names Judge Holwell.

Other claims about Galleon Group LLC