????消息首次曝光是在大約一年半之前,。當(dāng)時(shí),，古普塔突然辭去高盛集團(tuán)董事一職【他也從寶潔公司（Procter Gamble）董事會(huì)辭職】。麥肯錫公司的許多人援引“無罪假定”原則,，對(duì)古普塔表示支持——但我們依然可以觀察到此事引發(fā)的震蕩,。今年3月份，真實(shí)的竊聽內(nèi)容于曝光,，麥肯錫公司決定徹底切斷跟古普塔的關(guān)系,。當(dāng)前的常務(wù)董事鮑達(dá)民親自致電古普塔，稱他如今被公司列為不受歡迎的人,。不用說,，古普塔高興不起來。

????這引發(fā)了我的最后一個(gè)觀點(diǎn),。倘若這個(gè)丑聞沒有對(duì)高盛或麥肯錫造成巨大影響（盡管這是一些人的迫切愿望）,，那么它對(duì)古普塔本人意味著什么呢？我想說的是,，情勢(shì)只會(huì)變得原來越糟糕,。上周三發(fā)布的對(duì)古普塔的起訴書證據(jù)相當(dāng)確鑿。高盛董事會(huì)的電話會(huì)議剛一結(jié)束，這家伙連電話都沒來得及放下,，就單鍵撥號(hào)聯(lián)系拉賈拉特南,，（據(jù)稱）向其吐露了相關(guān)消息。有一次,，整個(gè)過程花費(fèi)了16秒,。另一次花費(fèi)了23秒（古普塔現(xiàn)年62歲，如果隨著時(shí)間的流逝,，他失足了一兩次,，那就讓他歇一歇吧）。

????具體來說,，政府指控古普塔曾在2008年9月份向拉賈拉特南透露沃倫?巴菲特斥資50億美元投資高盛的消息,，隨后拉賈拉特南迅速買入高盛股票。其二,，同年10月份,，古普塔向拉賈拉特南秘密傳達(dá)了高盛集團(tuán)上市之后首次出現(xiàn)季度虧損的消息。

????據(jù)《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》（the Wall Street Journal）報(bào)道,，古普塔的律師蓋里?納夫塔利斯的辯護(hù)立場(chǎng)非常鮮明,。古普塔“沒有進(jìn)行過任何證券交易，沒有為拉賈拉特南提供過內(nèi)幕信息,，讓他從事交易,，也沒有從中獲得任何作為投資報(bào)酬的分紅，”納夫塔利斯說,。

????以下是我這個(gè)“非正規(guī)法庭”對(duì)這些申訴的評(píng)判,。其一：他或許沒有進(jìn)行過任何證券交易。這對(duì)他來說太糟糕了,。要是他進(jìn)行過交易,，他或許可以使用一些利潤(rùn)支付自己的辯護(hù)費(fèi)用。其二：幾乎完全可以肯定的是,，他告訴了拉賈拉特南一些他不應(yīng)該透露的消息,。比如，2008年10月24日,，針對(duì)拉賈拉特南的竊聽發(fā)現(xiàn)，他對(duì)一位同事說：“我昨天從高盛集團(tuán)一位董事那里聽說該集團(tuán)即將報(bào)告每股虧損2美元的消息,。華爾街卻認(rèn)為高盛將獲得每股2.5美元的盈利,。”

????對(duì)古普塔的辯護(hù)最有趣的部分顯然跟“利益”一詞的含義有關(guān),。納夫塔利斯不斷重申,，由于古普塔從未從拉賈拉特南那里收受過任何金錢或直接利益，因此不可能犯有內(nèi)幕交易罪。在本案中,，納夫塔利斯是一位律師,，也僅僅是一位律師而已。因?yàn)閺募夹g(shù)上來說,，古普塔是內(nèi)部的一位知情人,，他很可能被控犯有“經(jīng)典”意義上的內(nèi)幕交易罪，根據(jù)這一定義,，金錢利益是有罪的必要前提,。但在其他類型的內(nèi)幕交易案件（所謂的“挪用”型）中有過先例，案件涉及的“個(gè)人利益”遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不止金錢那么簡(jiǎn)單,。

????這讓我想起了一個(gè)關(guān)于古普塔以及麥肯錫公司的一個(gè)明顯事實(shí),。不同于華爾街那些只想獲得金錢的交易員，古普塔是一位咨詢師,。咨詢師所看重的是影響力,，而非鈔票。對(duì)于古普塔來說,，不幸的是,，他可以施加影響力的那個(gè)人如今正在蹲監(jiān)獄。要是他們最終落腳于同一個(gè)監(jiān)獄分區(qū)的話,，拉賈拉特南或許能夠投桃報(bào)李,，回報(bào)他的恩情。

????譯者：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.