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

McKinsey's Dikshit Got 24 Months After Insider Trader Plea, Now Denial of Plea Withdrawal Bid

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 21 – November 10, 2021 saw "the unsealing of a criminal complaint charging PUNEET DIKSHIT, a partner in a global management consulting firm (the “Consulting Firm”), with securities fraud in connection with a scheme to commit insider trading based on material, nonpublic information regarding the upcoming public announcement that an investment bank (the “Investment Bank”) – which DIKSHIT and the Consulting Firm were advising – would be acquiring GreenSky, Inc. (“GreenSky”). 

 On April 6, 2022, Dikshit who was seeking no jail time, just deportation, was sentenced to 24 months. Inner City Press live tweeted it here:

Dikshit is being sentenced right now in 24A

 AUSA: Other McKinsey partners have been convicted of insider trading in this courthouse.

Judge Colleen McMahon: They do seem to have a problem over there.

Defense: He's paid $455,000. He empowered his wife. He changes diapers. He fed the homeless in Mumbai.

 Defense: Mr Dikshit worked for Citibank. His wife's H1B visa is contingent on his status. So he won't consent to removal.

 Judge: Wasn't wife's account used?

 Judge McMahon: It's brazen. He wasn't a 1st year associate. Dikshit: I'm sorry. This crime is not who I am. Judge: What *were* you thinking??

 Judge McMahon: Everybody out there thinks people on Wall Street cheat. And you did. I want the word to go out: insider traders must be jailed.

 Judge McMahon: I sentence you to 24 months.

On April 18, Kramer Levin for Dikshit asked for permission to him to move to Atlanta, Georgia from April 30 until his scheduled surrender on July 11, saying his lease expires on April 30. Also, he has beeen going to Windsor, NJ to pray at BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir.

On April 19 Judge McMahon endorsed the move to Georgia -- "OK with me" -- and switched the requested designation to Danbury-low.

On May 3 Dikshit, now without a lawyer, from his 30th floor apartment on East 56th Street asked for a sentence reduction, citing Blakstad, a case Inner City Press has also covered.

Judge McMahon denied the request: "MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Puneet Dikshit (1) striking [30] Motion re: [30] DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT. ENDORSEMENT: (1) Defendant's pro se motion filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the FRCP is hereby stricken. Rule 59(e) is Not an allowable vehicle for challenging a Criminal Judgment. (2) Even if Rule 59 were a proper vehicle, the motion would be denied. The Court absolutely considered defendant's immigration status in fashioning defendant's sentence. (3) Defendant has filed an appeal which divests this Court of jurisdiction over defendant's case. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 5/4/2022)."

In August 2022, Dikshit filed another motion, this seeking to withdraw his guilty plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from the defense counsel failing to inform defendant about the mandatory deportation he faced upon pleading guilty.

But in the December 15, 2021 plea allocution, Judge McMahon asked, "Do you understanding that adjudication of guilt as a felon may have an adverce impact on your immigration status?

DIKSHIT: Yes. I understand that.


On August 18, Judge McMahon granted a final extension of surrender to prison: "MEMO ENDORSEMENT [34] MOTION DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXTEND SURRENDER DATE as to Puneet Dikshit....ENDORSEMENT...Because the Government consents, the court will allow this one last postponement,of Mr. Dikshit's surrender date. The new surrender date is October 17, 2022. The date will not be postponed &gain for any reason. The current travel restrictions are extended through the new surrender date (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 8/18/22)."

On October 3, Dikshit again argued to withdraw his plea: "DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO DECLARATIONS FILED BY HIS PREVIOUS COUNSEL by Puneet Dikshit. Defendant, Puneet Dikshit, pro se, respectfully submits his response to the declaration filed by his ex-counsel. Given the declarations filed by Steven S. Sparling and Matthew Martinez, the defendant reiterates his request for the court permit the defendant to withdraw or otherwise set aside and vacate the plea entered on December 15th, 2021, and the resulting judgment entered in this case on April 6th, 2022."

On October 19, the US Attorney's Office filed opposition, including that "given the overwhelming nature of the evidence against him, it was both rational and advisable for Dikshit to conclude that he could minimize the length of any prison sentence by accepting responsibility immediately, waiving indictment, and pleading guilty."

On October 20, docketed on October 21, Judge McMahon denied Dikshit's motions:  Before the Court is Dikshit's pro se motion to "withdraw or otherwise set aside and vacate" his guilty plea "due to ineffective assistance of counsel." Dikshit alleges that his counsel "fail[ed] to inform him about the mandatory deportation he faced upon pleading guilty." (Dkt. 35). While styled under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B), the relief the defendant seeks is properly construed as a Section 2255 petition. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e) ("After the court imposes sentence, the defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and the plea may be set aside only on direct appeal or collateral attack."). Indeed, the Court construes defendant's motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition...The motion is denied-the petition is dismissed. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because there has been no "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see United States v. Perez, 129 F.3d 255,260 (2d Cir. 1997). Further, the Court finds, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from an order denying Dikshit's motion would not be taken in good faith. See Feliz v. United States, No. 01-cv-5544, 2002 WL 1964347, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2002). (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/20/2022)."

Watch this site.

Back in November 2021 it was said, "The defendant was arrested earlier today and will be presented this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kevin N. Fox."

   Now retired Judge Fox, when the time came, approved Dikshit's release on $1 million bond secured by $50,000 cash or property, signature of his wife required, other conditions to be met by November 19, 2021.  

While the above airbrushed out McKinsey and Goldman Sachs, they are "Consulting Firm" and "Investment Bank" respectively.

On December 15, 2021 Dikshit pleaded guilty: "PUNEET DIKSHIT, a former partner in a global management consulting firm (the “Consulting Firm”), pled guilty to one count of securities fraud in connection with his scheme to commit insider trading based on material, nonpublic information regarding the upcoming public announcement that an investment bank (the “Investment Bank”) – which DIKSHIT and the Consulting Firm were advising – would be acquiring GreenSky, Inc. (“GreenSky”).  The defendant pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon."

The plea agreement provides for a guideline sentence of 30 to 37 months (plea agreement on Patreon here). He is scheduled to be sentenced on March 30, 2022.

  But on that day, when Inner City Press went, the sentencing was postponed - to April 6, it was said. Into the docket on April 4 went a letter from the prosecutors, that they "understood that the defendant would consent to a motion for a judicial order of removal" to India... "Today, the defendant advised the Government that he would not consent to such a motion."

The case is US v. Dikshit, 21-cr-760 (McMahon)


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]
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: 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 2006-2021 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at]