Legal News

In Cross-Exam of Rajaratnam Witness, Sparks Fly

By Ashby Jones

Akin Gump’s John Dowd can be an aggressive lawyer. In fact, the WSJ described his tactics in his current defense of Raj Rajaratnam as “combative” just a little over a week ago.

But on Tuesday, government witness Anil Kumar showed he’s able to get a little testy as well.

As we reported on Thursday and Monday , Kumar testified that, while working at McKinsey & Co., he funneled Rajaratnam insider information in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars. (Kumar pleaded guilty to conspiracy and securities fraud in January of last year 2010.)

Tuesday, Dowd got his crack at Kumar.

According to reporting by the WSJ’s Michael Rothfeld and Susan Pulliam, Dowd Tuesday focused on the payments Kumar was alleged to have received in exchange for the information he paid to Rajaratnam.

Dowd first highlighted his failure to report them on his tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service.

“In fact they were fraudulent,” Dowd said during one of several exchanges.

“Is that a question?” countered Kumar, who testified that he had turned over his income from Rajaratnam to the government and recently paid an additional $1 million to cover his potential tax liability.

Dowd later asked what promises  Kumar had received in exchange for his cooperation to avoid prosecution on additional crimes and potentially receive a lighter sentence. Earlier, in his opening statement, Dowd had said government witnesses were testifying to “save their own skins.”

“It’s important to testify in this court to make [Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan] Streeter happy, correct?” Dowd said, referring to the lead prosecutor, Jonathan Streeter.

“Wrong,” Mr. Kumar responded. He said he was testifying to “uphold the law” and let the jury decide whether Rajaratnam should be convicted.

“Don’t you agree that the government’s objective is to convict Mr. Rajaratnam?” Dowd continued.

“Wrong,” Kumar said.

Love it, we say. Let the sparks fly! The cross-exam continued Tuesday afternoon. We’ll continue to keep you updated.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on March 15, 2011 (boomark / email).