Inner City Press

In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYTAzerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka


FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"




Bank Beat

Freedom of Information

How to Contact Us

On SDNY Acts in Ahuja and Shor Case Now Focus on Who Knew What Before 8 June 2019

By Matthew Russell Lee, Periscope, Photos

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Jan 20 – In the US prosecution of Premium Point Investments hedge funders Anilesh Ahuja and Jeremy Shor, the government doggedly tried to show the jury the so-called sector spread and mid-bid mis-marking scams by which the two defendants allegedly overvalued their portfolios.

  Apparently it worked. But now? Now post-trial filings in the case allege that cooperating witness Majidi had his allocution written, or re-written, by the prosecutors - and handed to him ten minutes before he read it out loud, on October 31, 2018. A ghoulish Halloween on which we'll have more.

 On January 13, this from Judge Failla: "ORDER as to Anilesh Ahuja, Jeremy Shor: Each prosecutor-declarant is ORDERED to identify: (i) the nature and scope of their involvement in any plea discussions with Mr. Majidi or his counsel; (ii) their involvement in any communications with their colleagues, Mr. Majidi, and/or his counsel regarding the substance of Mr. Majidi's allocution; (iii) the date, time, parties to, and mode of communicating for each of these communications; (iv) the totality of the prosecutor-declarant's knowledge, as of June 10, 2019, concerning any communications by and among representatives of the United States Attorney's Office, Mr. Majidi, and/or Mr. Majidi's counsel regarding the substance of Mr. Majidi's plea allocution; (v) to the extent the prosecutor-declarant answered questions from the Court regarding Mr. Majidi's plea allocution on June 10, 2019, the bases for the answers they provided, any areas as to which they had any uncertainty in their answers to the Court, and any steps taken at any time after June 10, 2019, in order to confirm the accuracy of their representations to the Court; and (vi) to the extent the prosecutor-declarant witnessed other members of the prosecution team answer questions from the Court regarding Mr. Majidi's plea allocution on June 10, 2019, their contemporaneous belief as to the accuracy of their colleagues representations to the Court, the bases for that belief, and any steps taken by the prosecutor-declarant at any time after June 10, 2019, in order to confirm the accuracy of their colleague's representations to the Court. The sworn statements are due to the Court on or before February 12, 2021. Should the Government believe that sealing or redaction of any submission is warranted, it may apply to the Court for leave to file under seal or in redacted form. After the Court receives and reviews the sworn statements, it will schedule briefing on the contemplated motions of Defendants Ahuja and Shor." We'll have more on this.

  One more question was added on January 20: "MEMO ENDORSEMENT [425] LETTER MOTION to respectfully request that the Court amend its January 13, 2021 Order to (a) request declarations from other persons with firsthand knowledge of the events in question; and (b) include two additional questions suggested below. We believe that these additional declarations and questions will further assist the Court in its efforts to understand the relevant facts. In terms of declarations, we respectfully request that Your Honor direct that other persons who participated in the events in question be asked to submit declarations as to their recollections of those events...ENDORSEMENT....The Court is in receipt of the above letter from defense counsel.The Court declines to order affidavits from additional individuals or to order the existing three affiants to answer thefirst question presented above. However, the Court does modify its January 13, 2021 directive to further require a response to the second set of questions presented. The prosecutor-affiants are hereby ORDERED to include in their sworn statements, due on or before February 12, 2021, an explanation of the steps they took before representing in their June 8, 2019 letter to the Court that they had reviewed all communications with witnesses' attorneys, including steps taken to locate evidence of oral communications; whether they identified any of the undisclosed communications at the time; and, if so, why those communications were not disclosed (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 1/20/2021)."

 On September 28, 2020, the US Attorney's Office asked to postpone Amin Majidi's sentencing for at least three months due to the "post-trial litigation" - "Re: United States v. Amin Majidi, 18 Cr. 328 (KPF) Dear Judge Failla: The Government respectfully writes to request that the date for Amin Majidi’s sentencing, which is currently scheduled for October 6, 2020, be adjourned... in order to defer the sentencing until after the completion of the post-trial litigation currently pending in this Court. Counsel for Mr. Majidi consents to this request. Respectfully submitted, AUDREY STRAUSS Attorney for the United States Acting Under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515."

 Now on September 29, Majidi's sentencing has been pushed all the way back to February 10: "MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Amin Majidi granting [407] CONSENT LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Katherine Polk Failla from Max Nicholas dated September 28, 2020 re: Adjournment of Sentencing. ENDORSEMENT: Application GRANTED. The sentencing for defendant Amin Majidi, previously scheduled for October 6, 2020, is hereby ADJOURNED to February 10, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY. SO ORDERED."

  On August 5, the Second Circuit granted a motion to hold the appeals of Neil Ahuja and Jeremy Shor in abeyance pending Judge Failla's inquiry. Shor's counsel Justin Weddle filed that with Judge Failla asking to postpone surrender until the later of January 4, 2021 or 90 days after any motions Shor makes after the fact finding process.

 On July 24, Judge Failla held a proceeding. Inner City Press live tweeted it, below.

 Now on August 4, from Judge Failla, this: "The Court is in receipt of the Government's July 31, 2020 letter (Dkt. #393), and Ahuja's and Shor's  letter (Dkt. #395). The Court resolves the parties' dispute as follows: (i) the Government is ORDERED to expand its search to include the time period of June 10, 2020 to June 19, 2020, as requested by Ahuja and Shor; (ii) the Government is ORDERED to produce documents identified during its review that reflect any suggestion, instruction, direction or preference that any communication not be sent by email or otherwise put in writing, that a communication take place in-person or by telephone, or that a method of communication other than email be used; and (iii) Ahuja's and Shor's request for the Government to review internal communications from June 3 2019 to June 11, 2019 is DENIED, as the Government's granular searches outlined in pages 1-3 of its July 31, 2020 letter should produce any relevant documents from this time period. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 8/4/2020)."

From July 24: Before Judge Failla, a push to get the type of US Attorney's Office internal chats that "recently came up in a case before Judge Nathan" - that is, US v. Nejad, here..

Judge Failla began this proceeding by disclosing having run into lawyers in the case, since the trial, at a cocktail party by Preet Bharara  - and wants full answers

Judge Failla said the US Attorney's Office's approach to this inquiry has been "interative." She asks them to give a complete answer: what happened in this case? Urges that none of the cooperators be sentenced until this inquiry is finished. US seems to agree.

 Defense lawyer: Your Honor should order the government to go back and review the whole file, for all Brady & Giglio - their representations so far, we can't rely on. "There was a deliberate effort to not put things in emails in order to not have to disclose them"

Defense lawyer: It is clear that each of the cooperators allocutions were shaped by the US Attorney - with no written record of it. An edited document was created, then instead of e-mailing there is a phone call to discuss the changes. So what else is there?

 AUSA: It's unfair to say we don't know what Brady and Giglio are. [That's not what's being said.]

 Judge Failla: I want to see whatever comes to me in this matter. Then I'll decide on more.

Back on July 16, the US Attorney's Office informed Judge Failla that they will collect and release all records related to a November 26, 2019 FOIA request, including "any emails, text messages, internal chats and voicemails...The Government plans to use the search term 'FOIA' to conduct this search." We'll have more on this.

Back on June 21, the day after a legal reality show surrounding SDNY US Attorney Geoffrey Berman and the office, Inner City Press reported that only days before that Office, after the Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad "errors," admitted others in Ahuja and Shor: "Re: United States v. Anilesh Ahuja, et al. S1 18 Cr. 328 (KPF) Dear Judge Failla: The Government respectfully writes to advise the Court and the parties that certain representations it made to the Court during trial about the Government’s communications with counsel for cooperating witness Amin Majidi prior to Majidi’s guilty plea were wrong. While the Government’s communications with Majidi’s counsel were entirely proper, its recounting of those communications to the Court was partly inaccurate. 1 During trial, the Government produced to defense counsel a draft allocution that Majidi’s counsel had sent to the Government in advance of Majidi’s plea proceeding (the “Draft Allocution”). The Draft Allocution differed from the allocution that Majidi gave (the “Final Allocution”). The Court made clear that draft allocutions received from counsel for cooperating witnesses should have been produced to the defense earlier, pursuant to United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 544 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2008), and directed the Government to review its attorney communications in this case for any additional materials that should be produced to the defense pursuant to Triumph Capital. (Tr. 479)."

 On June 24, the SDNY US Attorney's Office now under Audrey Strauss wrote that "the Government agrees to undertake a search of internal emails (including calendar invites), as well as internal paper and electronic files, for certain materials that would be responsive to this request. Specifically, the prosecutors on the trial team are searching all of their internal emails beginning two days prior to the plea proceedings for Majidi and cooperating witnesses Frank Dinucci and Ashish Dole, up to and including the date of those plea proceedings,1 for any materials responsive to the request in the Shor Letter (i.e. “internal or external communications regarding the substance or content of any draft, proposed, or actual plea allocution relating to the scheme alleged in this case; any meetings regarding cooperator allocutions in this case; and all versions of any draft, proposed, or actual plea allocutions relating to the scheme alleged in this case” (see Shor Letter at 8)), notwithstanding whether such materials were ever communicated to outside counsel or would be discoverable pursuant to Triumph Capital, Brady, Giglio, or on any other legal basis. The Government will produce any relevant materials resulting from this search by June 26, 2020. The Government believes that searching for and producing to the Court and the parties internal communications of this kind is appropriate in light of the specific facts of this case; namely, the mistakes described in the Government Letter, irrespective of whether such communications are discoverable or can be used in any way by either defendant. However, the Government does not believe that this search should be required to include phone logs, as requested in the Shor Letter. To the extent they are maintained, phone logs would not reflect the substance of actual conversations, and expanding the search to include them is not warranted." Will Judge Failla, like Judge Nathan, ask who is responsible?

  Back on July 11 the jury found both Ahuja and Shor guilty. This came after, on the 4th of July, Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Shor's bid to introduce into evidence portions of the FBI Form 302 interview with James Nimberg. Or maybe it was the text message, introduced into evidence, in which Shor told Ashisha Dole and cooperating witness Majidi, "I’m done giving frank a BJ. Sorry to be crass boss. Back in 3."
We'll have more on this.


Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at]

Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] for