[ntakasaki]

Continuing the story from his Wiki page:

In March 2011, Aleynikov appealed the conviction, asking the Second Circuit to review the District Court's decision denying his original motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to state a claim.[9]

On February 16, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument on his appeal and, later that same day, unanimously ordered his conviction reversed and a judgment of acquittal entered, with opinion to follow.[10] Aleynikov was released from custody the next day.

On April 11, 2012, Dennis Jacobs, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals, published a unanimous decision in a written opinion[10] stating:

On appeal, Aleynikov argues, inter alia, that his conduct did not constitute an offense under either statute. He argues that: [1] the source code was not a "stolen" "good" within the meaning of the NSPA, and [2] the source code was not “related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce” within the meaning of the EEA. We agree, and reverse the judgment of the district court.[9]

In the course of these events, Aleynikov has spent 11 months in prison. Aleynikov has divorced, lost his savings, and his career is ruined.[11]

The government did not seek reconsideration of the Second Circuit's ruling, thus ending federal action against Aleynikov.[12]

[revelation]

And of course, continuing continuing:

On August 9, 2012, Aleynikov was re-arrested and charged by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr.[14] on behalf of New York state, with the offenses of "unlawful use of secret scientific material" and "unlawful duplication of computer related material"[15] based on the same conduct. The state prosecution was initiated based on a signed complaint by the same federal agent, McSwain, who led the investigation of the failed federal prosecution.

[..]

[..] and rejected the prosecutors' plea offer of accepting a single count offense and serving no jail time.

--

If that isn't malicious, I don't know what is. Charging someone acquitted for the same conduct, only to then offer him a plea deal of no prison time? What is the point here?

[dm2]

How did he lose the motion to dismiss because of double jeopardy? He's even already served time in prison.

[ntakasaki]

On April 5, 2013, Aleynikov lost his motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy. In rendering the decision, New York State Supreme Court Justice Ronald Zweibel stated that Aleynikov's acquittal in federal court only precluded the federal government from retrying Aleynikov. The state of New York, as a separate sovereign, could continue pursuing charges against Aleynikov.

[dm2]

Ah, I had read that but didn't understand it at first.

That seems wrong (unfair) that the state can go after someone for a crime after the federal government has already acquitted that person of the same crime.

[DannyBee]

This is actually exactly how it is meant to be. Double jeopardy prevents you from being tried twice by the same sovereign entity. As the state and federal government are separate sovereigns, you aren't being tried twice by the same sovereign.

It would be like being acquitted in russia and then charged in argentina.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#Dual_sov...

[CamperBob2]

Yeah, if Argentina were a Russian state, it would be exactly like being acquitted in Russia and then charged in Argentina.

[__anders__]

> It would be like being acquitted in russia and then charged in argentina.

No, "it would be like being acquitted in Russia and then charged in Moscow" or "it would be like being acquitted in Argentina and then charged in Buenos Aires".

[EGreg]

IANAL but I think the double jeopardy vlause f the fifth amendment had been INCORPORATED against the states in the 80s man

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benton_v._Maryland

[judk]

If your are going to downvote a lawyer quoting the law, please provide a refutation.

Also, doenvoters, if you believe that Federal govt tramples your rights and power should be returned to local authorities, consider the consistency of your internal logic.

[dfc]

Federalism is a bitch, consider state versus federal interests:

  The “dual sovereignty” doctrine is not only tied into the existence of two    
  sets of laws often serving different federal-state purposes and the now       
  overruled principle that the Double Jeopardy Clause restricts only the        
  national government and not the states,[55] but it also reflects practical    
  considerations that undesirable consequences could follow an overruling       
  of the doctrine. Thus, a state might preempt federal authority by first       
  prosecuting and providing for a lenient sentence (as compared to the possible 
  federal sentence) or acquitting defendants who had the sympathy of state      
  authorities as against federal law enforcement.[56]                           

  55 Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), extended the clause to the states.

  56 Reaffirmation of the doctrine against double jeopardy claims as to the
  Federal Government and against due process claims as to the states occurred
  in Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959), and Bartkus v. Illinois,
  359 U.S. 121 (1959), both cases containing extensive discussion and policy
  analyses. The Justice Department follows a policy of generally not duplicating
  a state prosecution brought and carried out in good faith, see Petite
  v. United States, 361 U.S. 529, 531 (1960); Rinaldi v. United States, 434
  U.S. 22 (1977), and several provisions of federal law forbid a federal
  prosecution following a state prosecution. E.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 659, 660, 1992,
  2117. The Brown Commission recommended a general statute to this effect,
  preserving discretion in federal authorities to proceed upon certification by
  the Attorney General that a United States interest would be unduly harmed if
  there were no federal prosecution. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF FEDERAL
  CRIMINAL LAWS, FINAL REPORT 707 (1971).

[^1]: Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation page 1490 - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/content-detail.h...

[HeyLaughingBoy]

It's not exactly the same crime. The appeals court basically said he didn't violate any Federal statutes. However it's very likely that he violated New York statutes (taking the property of a New York corporation).

IOW: don't try to take the code your employer paid you to write/modify and use it at another job.

[niels_olson]

> don't try to take the code your employer paid you to write/modify and use it at another job.

What to do about the open source licensing? Presumably some of the stuff was GPL'd.

[fsk]

That's a common legal loophole. Many acts are illegal under BOTH state and Federal law. That gives prosecutors two chances to send you to jail, if they decide they really want to get you. To stay out of jail, you have to get acquitted TWICE (and pay for your own lawyers both times).

[EGreg]

What about incorporation of the amendment against the states?

[EGreg]

What about double jeopardy and incorporation against the states?

[dfc]

How many times are you going to ask the same question? It seems you are failing to consider the “dual sovereignty” doctrine, double jeopardy is applied per sovereign. I answered in full here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7578770

[droopyEyelids]

That conviction will probably prevent him from working in finance in the future.

[Justsignedup]

so he doesn't sue for wrongful imprisonment, and it creates a precedence for future cases.

[dfc]

Caveat lector: You should significantly discount legal analysis from an author that confuses precedence and precedent.

To be honest I am even confused about what precedent you are referring to?

[judk]

Justsignedup is saying that the state is trying to get defendant to plea to a no-punishment conviction, pressuring defendant to agree to their charges, so that he state can win future cases on this precedent.

[kbenson]

Wouldn't it only create precedence if he sued and it was dismissed? I can't imagine precedence being created from the lack of a legal decision.

[dm2]

I'm guessing that there isn't any legal recourse (monetary) for him from Goldman Sachs and the FBI ruining his life.

Should there be?

Goldman Sachs had every right to request that he be prosecuted, but no matter how the case turned out, his life would be ruined. I don't know of a good solution to this issue, but it just seems very wrong. I'm sure there have been countless instances of this happening though.

Maybe a good solution would be to lessen the penalties for this type of crime.

Maybe a legal requirement for a public apology and for the prosecutor to have to pay back legal costs? A portion of this restitution should come out of that courts budget or the department that perused the case without doing their due diligence.

Did Sergey sign something saying that he could never remove code from the building or use it in another project? I'm not sure that it simply being company policy is enough, in my opinion.

Has anyone here ever taken code from one employer with the intent of using it again if needed, simply to save time and not having to duplicate research? Should you be considered a criminal for that? Should you have to pay back the time the company paid you to write that code?

It seems like the lessons are:

1) Don't talk to police, even if you did nothing wrong and they tell you they are on your side. Lawyer up.

2) Don't steal code, but if you do then encrypt it and put it on a portable media device. Uploading to a foreign SVN repository using the companies network wasn't very smart, don't do that.

3) Ensure that your employees know the company's policy on removing code from the premises. It seems pretty obvious but I believe that Sergey honestly didn't think he was doing anything wrong.

[pmorici]

If there are no consequences to wrongly prosecuting someone just to hassle them then wouldn't that encourage people like Goldman Sachs to use that tool to extract revenge on people?

[rdtsc]

Yes it would.

If there are no repercussions this will happen again.

I guess he can sue them in civil court but does he have the money for the lawyer? Does he have a chance?

[dm2]

Sergey did technically break the law (or so they reasonably thought) by taking company code with the intention of using it after he left the company.

I think the real issue is whether or not he was acting maliciously, what the damage to Goldman Sachs was (basically none), and whether or not the punishment fit the crime.

Maybe companies should be forced to have an exit interview for programmers with access to information the company deems sensitive and make sure the programmer knows that they are not allowed to take any code with them.

[emn13]

I don't think he broke the law in any meaningful way; he merely did things that powerful people could portray as such.

I seriously doubt Goldman Sachs had any problem with him using/participating in non-secret open source as long as it was part of his work for them. Claiming this was stealing is sophistry - sure, he doesn't sound like a very clever (in the sense of cover-your-ass) guy, but if he'd have been open about what he did, there's no doubt that if he indeed was in anyway important to the company they would have OK's considerably more leeway if it contributed to their bottom line.

As is, they're simply abusing the lack of legal canny of their victim here. Which just goes to show - don't work for Goldman Sachs if you're smart - why take this kind of risk if you can get lots of other opportunities...

[rdtsc]

It seems GS replaced license headers from files with their own license. Painting with broad brush strokes here, is stealing from a thief still stealing?

[dm2]

After considering that some more, it seems like the court could (and maybe should) have ruled that it was simply a misunderstanding of the open-source code's license.

It seems like a waste of everyone's time to even pursue a case such as this after it's determined that the person didn't have malicious intentions.

Could the owner of the modified code successfully sue Goldman Sachs?

[karmajunkie]

Should there be recourse for facilitating malicious prosecution? It's a travesty if there isn't.

[emn13]

Travesty it is.

[fchollet]

You forgot the biggest takeaway:

0) Don't work for Goldman Sachs. Dance with the sharks, and they'll bite your arm off eventually.

[foobarian]

To me the lesson is:

1) Avoid GS like the Satan. Actually avoid the whole financial industry.

[dopamean]

IIRC the prosecutor in Durham, NC that went after the Duke lacrosse team was disbarred but I'm not sure what monetary penalties were allowed.

[dm2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

Yep, but that prosecutor lied just to try to win the case. He was disbarred and sentenced to one day in jail and a $500 fine after attempting to ruin several peoples lives just so that his win/loss stats would be slightly better.

Courts have said that the players can pursue charges against the prosecutor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong

They also didn't bring charges against the woman who falsely accused the lacrosse players of rape. She has since been convicted of several crimes including attempted murder and second-degree murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Gail_Mangum#Arrests_sin...

[hackuser]

I remember trying to edit those Wikipedia pages. There was a gang of users with names like Duke123 and BlueDevil456 who allowed nothing but biased information in favor of the players or against the prosecutor and alleged victim. All of Wikipedia's standards (NPOV, verifiability, etc.) went right out the window.

I've seen it on other Wikipedia pages about hot issues, but those pages were the worst. I wouldn't trust a thing I read there (or about any hot issue on Wikipedia).

[hackuser]

> IIRC the prosecutor in Durham, NC that went after the Duke lacrosse team was disbarred but I'm not sure what monetary penalties were allowed.

But that was the reverse situation. The local prosecutor was representing the weak (a local stripper) against the powerful (the Duke lacrosse players, some of whose parents were powerful inside-the-beltway PR experts). They ran a nationwide media campaign vilifying the alleged victim and the prosecutor; you're a local DA or a stripper and you turn on CNN and see that? What hope do you have to compete? Hire a national PR team? I remember the NY Times coverage (which I usually greatly respect) pretty much repeating the lacrosse players' side point by point.

Think of all the egregious prosecutorial misconduct you've read about; why was this one disbarred? When the United States Attorney General is weighing in on a local rape case and the state bar is threatening you, you know have messed with the wrong people as a prosecutor.

Whatever happened between the lacrosse players and the stripper, the outcome had nothing to do with the facts or justice. They were tried (really she and the prosecutor were) in the press and were successfully prevented from having their day in court, where they are given an equal chance to speak -- it is supposed to be the leveler in our democracy.

[hackuser]

It's probably too late for anyone to see this, but notice how even on HN, the parent gets modded down and raising any question about this issue (I don't even pretend to know what happened) is suppressed.

[cafard]

I didn't vote you down. But it wasn't just the stripper who got tried in the press. If you were reading the papers then, reasonable doubt didn't seem to be considered. She did not get her "day in court" because the government dropped the charges. Dropping the charges is responsible on the part of prosecutors, if they consider that a case cannot be proven, let alone if they come to consider that it is false.

[WiseWeasel]

0) Don't work for Goldman Sachs.

[pessimizer]

His career definitely isn't ruined. He's well liked, well respected, and computer literate people generally saw these charges as incoherent.

[Dolimiter]

Just a clarification:

Goldman Sachs didn't "jail" this person. Goldman Sachs is a corporation, and therefore doesn't prosecute nor jail people.

Please leave this nonsense on Reddit.

[patrickk]

They didn't jail him, however they provided the impetus to the FBI to arrest him.

Quotes from the book, p.148 (EDIT: These quotes are in the article here also!!):

"What Serge did not yet know was that Goldman has discovered his downloads- of what appeared to be the code they used for their proprietary high speed trading stock market trading- just a few days earlier, even though Serge had sent himself the first batch of code months ago. They'd called the FBI in haste and had put McSwain [FBI agent who arrested Serge] through what amounted to a crash course in high-frequency trading and computer programming. McSwain later concluded that he didn't seek out independent expert advice to study the code that Serge Aleynikov had taken, or seek to find out why he might have taken it. "I relied on statements from Goldman employees", he said. He had no idea himself of the value of the stolen code ("representatives of Goldman told me it was worth a lot of money"),or if any of it was actually all that special ("representatives of Goldman told us there were trade secrets in the code")."

"The FBI's investigation before the arrest consisted of Goldman explaining some extremely complicated stuff to McSwain that he admitted that he didn't fully understand- but trusted that Goldman did. Forty-eight hours after Goldman called the FBI, McSwain arrested Serge."

So effectively Goldman got Serge arrested, using a clueless agent as a pawn. Some of the code was originally open source, none of the code involved trading strategies (the really valuable stuff) and Goldman's word was enough to convince the FBI that Serge was a dangerous criminal and a flight risk, and ruined his life.

[gd1]

>none of the code involved trading strategies (the really valuable stuff)

Wrong. In HFT, the 'strategies' are the least complex part. They are often dead simple. A well written (fast) exchange connection is at least 70% of the game.

He's a thief and he got caught, but the HN community don't like that narrative.

[patrickk]

The HFT experts from the book were amazed he didn't walk away with trading strategies, rather "plumbing" code, which is useless outside of Goldman (specific to their network, also his new employer used a different programming language) apart from a memory jogging exercise, like keeping a notepad. It would be much easier to write the new code from scratch rather than reuse the Goldman code.

And he didnt steal code, he backed it up on a subversion repo. There was unlikely any malicious intent, yet you labelled him a thief. If he was so obviously a thief, why would HFT experts be furious what happened to him, once they learned the details? Why were charges dropped? Why use an agent with no clue in the matter as a pawn? What you're saying doesn't make sense.

[Dolimiter]

But the headline says:

"Goldman Sachs Steals Open Source, Jails Coder"

Which is a lie.

It depresses me that even HackerNews upvotes headlines they know are untrue, if it suits the cultural narrative.

[tomp]

The headline is a lie, but the other part - Goldman did not steal open source, because what is being given for free can not be stolen. (Moreover, if they didn't redistribute the code (which I assume they didn't, based on the article), they didn't break the OS licence either.)

[DanBC]

It depresses me if people vote on headlines at all. People should be ignoring the headline - which is always flawed - and voting on the article.

[dfc]

It depresses me that you are up/down voting headlines and not the content. And keep in mind that HN has a no title change policy.

[MaysonL]

Isn't it a felony to make false statements to a federal agent?

[dm2]

So basically there should have been several unbiased experts brought in before he was arrested to determine if the code truly contained any trade secrets?

[emn13]

I think that the government should be liable for all reasonables damages caused by police investigations. Not just here, but in general - it's obvious the police use investigation as a form of blackmail at occasion, and that's just wrong. As part of a conviction, some of those damages might be voided to the degree the damage was necessary and proportional to the crime.

Also, from the point of view of efficiency in society, this is a particularly nasty cost since its borne not by those that cause it (the officers), nor by those hiring them (the government), nor is it ever accounted for as a loss. I think this encourages malpractice. Certainly if you observe how the police go about enforcing the law once they've decided somebody is guilty in their own eyes there doesn't seem to be any kind of restraint whatsoever. To the extent they can, they're single-party judge, jury and enforcement in one, exactly the kind of thing the idea of a justice system is supposed to prevent.

[patrickk]

I'm not an expert at all, but sounds like that would've definitely helped.

The author, Michael Lewis, actually conducted an informal trial in a restaurant, with (neutral) HFT experts, who were even more furious than Serge was when they learned how he'd been treated.

I wouldn't be surprised if non-technical executives in Goldman simply saw a Russian leaving for a competitor, and assumed he was stealing valuable secrets without investigating properly.

Worst part is, even after the details become apparent (see other comments here), Goldman or the FBI are completely unable to admit any fuck ups, and continue hounding him.

[gd1]

How the hell does anyone determine that? If someone walked out of Id during Quake III development with Carmacks's inverse square root (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1349542/john-carmacks-unu...), would that be a trade secret? It's not like an inverse square root is a secret, but what about doing it faster than anyone else?? Writing the best 3D engine was part of their success, and writing the fastest order routing/exchange is a big part of HFT. He took source code from GS to go to a competitor that had offered him a lot of money, it's hard to have much sympathy for the guy.