This is CBSI in the world. I'm John Batcher with Raj Rajaratnam arrested in October of 2009 on trial for 18 months before the U.S. Southern District of New York.

Prikbara is the U.S. attorney. The prosecutors are different names, but they're all following the direction of of the office and the trial consists of a way of demonstrating to the jury what it is that Raj and I were just talking about what is a hedge fund in long short and the idea of what is inside your training, which at the time was not carefully defined as noted by Prikbara himself many years later in a commission in 2020.

Not defined. So an old saw in in law is that juries don't respond to facts. Juries respond to stories. The prosecution is wise that tells the story to the jury about what the perpetrator what the alleged perpetrator has done with Raj's case. I would expect to to have been testimony by people who were telling him things that were inside your trading.

And yet Raj, I am a flabbergasted to learn in your telling that the government called one of the names of people who were said to have passed on inside of information to galleon. Why didn't they call all those people that you spend your time investigating.

So that's that question requires a multifaceted answer. Number one, it was a case that was all over the newspapers. And the prosecutor wanted to win at all costs, not get the truth out.

They did not call any insider, the one that was alleged to have given the tip what and if they had done the truth would have come out.

What they did was they used three witnesses, each of whom had done a crime away from galleon and got them to testify against me so that they could get away.

They could have reduced sentence and after my case, all three of them got parole. These witnesses were coached and coaxed by the prosecution. In fact, the one of the witnesses, the main witness, totally reversed the story three years later on the same charges in the same circuit with the same witnesses.

And he said, I didn't give Raj any information that was useful and the jury acquitted him. Now, if you were a prosecutor that wanted the truth, you would have gone after the star witness.

Anil Kumar, either he was telling the truth in my case and the vote or he was telling the truth in my co conspirators. He couldn't have it both ways. And I would submit to you that when Anil Kumar was not under the leash of the prosecutor because he had been given two years sentence and it served it, he told the truth.

All right, let's go right to Anil Kumar because this is someone you knew as a friend as a colleague for decades. You met him at the first time at the warden school at the University of Pennsylvania 1981. You both graduated 1983.

He went to work for McKinsey in an analysis firm and you describe him as having a bland personality. What the fact support is that he had a dark side, a part of him that was ruthless. I would say a moral.

Did you ever thinking back now, Raj, did you feel at any time in your lengthy conversations with him over the years meeting him that he was a deceptive person that he that he wanted to stab you in the back. Did you feel that?

No, I didn't feel that John. In fact, about two months before my arrest, he sent me an email how amazing it was for us to reconnect and how he liked the life choices I have made. But what I had realized was he was trying to get me to be a client of McKinsey so that he could get credit for the galleon business.

What he had done over the years is shield his income in a sister bank account. Right. And that was his Achilles heel. And so to avoid jail time, he testified against me. I think he got some conscience after he was sentenced and then testified truly in my co conspirators case.

Right. In 2014 about testified again in a case against your younger brother. And he told the truth. And the case was dismissed. Your brother was found not guilty when he told us three years later. Now Raj helped me. I'm an amateur. How is it not important that a major witness reversed himself three years later while you were in while you were incarcerated. Didn't they come to you and say, Raj, we've made a mistake.

You would think in the perfect world. And if you thought that the justice system was here to get the truth, you would do that. It's even worse. We filed an appeal saying that the major witness has recanted a story. And as you read in the book, we put his testimony against in my case against the testimony in my brother's case.

And the government said that he must have forgotten was three years ago, but they didn't address the thing that he seemed to remember things that happened ten years ago.

So the bigger picture here is ambitious prosecutors and not all prosecutors are bad. I'm going to say that off the top of the, you know, at the very beginning.

There is a sliver of prosecutors who are so ambitious that they bend the rules to win because in this country, the judicial system is politicized.

The district attorney is appointed by the president. They have a clear career path to either become partners in law firms judges. The Keto Institute has shown that the best way to become judges to spend time as a prosecutor.

Or if you look at the majority of the congressman and senators who have a legal background, they were ex prosecutors.

...