Talk:Gary A. Tanaka

Untitled

Gratuitous allegations about embezzlement are uncalled for here. No-one is accused of embezzlement in this case. This case hinges on whether or not Amerindo made a statement in a letter to one of its clients which was untrue, and if so, whether or not that constitutes mail fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud, etc. No embezzlement has been alleged by anyone. Indeed, documents before the court confirm that when the company was wound up, all the clients received all their money back. There were no missing funds.

The trial has now begun, and the client has finished her testimony. She did not claim to have lost any money as a result of this affair. She did state that she had a long-standing friendship with one of the principals of the company (not Dr. Tanaka), but in the absence of any financial loss the judge ruled out any exploration of why she might have made the complaint, leaving the jury to draw their own conclusions. Those conclusions should, in any case, not influence their decision making.

As for the 3-year delay in bring the case to trial, the Fourth Amendment legal blog (http://fourthamendment.com/blog) has discussed this case and noted that the original investigation was misconceived, leading the judge to disallow much of the evidence. The prosecution has since asked for repeated delays as it seeks evidence relevant to all the various charges among the evidence which remains. They were presumably seeking evidence of other allegedly untrue representations to clients, but so far none has been forthcoming, though the prosecution has not yet finished presenting its case.

Dr. Tanaka, like anyone else, deserves to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and that alone justifies viewing him as a victim in this affair. But regardless of the eventual result of the trial, the destruction of Amerindo is a penalty far out of proportion to any crime of which Dr. Tanaka has been accused. This, it seems to me, justifies treating him as a victim whatever the eventual outcome. It certainly does not justify gratuitous allegations of embezzlement.61.18.170.16 (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a more neutral point of view. Let's not make him sound like the victim for being the one embezzling millions. The case is still in the courts 2 years later because the defense is stalling.

Why did you take this out? I deem it very important and is actually the reason why I came here in the first place:

---

- On June 1, 2005, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Amerindo Investment Advisors and its co-founders with fraud and misappropriation of in excess of $5 million of client funds. In the complaint, the SEC alleged that Vilar solicited an Amerindo client and close personal friend to invest $5 million in the Amerindo Venture Fund LP, which was purportedly being organized to qualify as a Small Business Investment Company (SBIC). Shortly after the investor wired $5 million to a brokerage account as Amerindo had instructed, Dr. Tanaka transferred at least $1.65 million to accounts Vilar and Amerindo controlled. In essence, the SEC alleged that Vilar used the funds received from the investor to pay personal expenses. The SEC alleged that when the investor inquired about the status of her SBIC investment after Amerindo failed to make promised quarterly payments, Vilar informed her that, although the Small Business Administration (SBA) had approved Amerindo’s application for an SBIC license, Amerindo had to re-apply for a license because of personnel turnover at the SBA. Further, Vilar is said to have stated that, while this process was ongoing, Amerindo had to deposit funds for the SBA, and that her $5 million investment constituted part of the $10 million Amerindo was required to put in escrow to initiate the fund. The SEC alleged that Vilar’s statements were false.

- - On May 26, 2005, federal agents arrested Vilar and Tanaka and seized all the documents and computers in Amerindo's offices, putting the firm out of business and throwing the employees out of work without warning. Ironically, this had been the fate of the Rainier Poultry Company, owned by Dr. Tanaka's father and abruptly put out of business in the confinement of Japanese at the outset of the second world war. In early 2007 a federal judge ruled that the search had been excessive and disallowed much of the material seized. As of late 2007, no trial date had yet been set and Dr. Tanaka remained on bail in New York, separated from his family.

---

78.105.62.181 (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gary A. Tanaka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090727070341/http://www.london-student.net:80/2008/09/15/tanaka-no-more/ to http://www.london-student.net/2008/09/15/tanaka-no-more/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)