Re: regarding Shleifer

[Daniel Davies <dsquared@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brad is telling the truth on the specifics of the case but an uncharitable
observer would say that another way to view the matter was that the guy was
speculating in privatisation stocks while advising on the privatisations and
that's fucked up.

dd

-----Original Message-----
From: PEN-L list [mailto:PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Michael
Perelman
Sent: 09 August 2005 03:25
To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: regarding Shleifer


Brad Delong sent me this information.


Was no criminal case--no indictment for defrauding the government.
What there was was a civil case--an attempt by the government to
recover damages for Andrei's making a *false claim* for money to the
government.

What was the false claim? That HIID employees were observing their
conflict-of-interest regulations. Why weren't they doing so? Because
Andrei wasn't. Why wasn't Andrei observing HIID conflict-of-interest
regulations? Because HIID told him he wasn't  an employee and didn't
have to worry about them. Why did the judge decide that Andrei was an
employee of HIID? Because HIID sent him his compensation on a W-2
form rather than a 1099 form...
--
J. Bradford DeLong

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu