1:15-cv-01724
S.D.N.Y.Aug 1, 2017Background
- Samarth Agrawal, a former Societe Generale trader, copied and printed proprietary high-frequency trading (HFT) computer code (DQS and ADP) and transported the printouts from New York to his New Jersey residence while pursuing employment with Tower Research Capital.
- Agrawal met with Tower, provided proprietary details from SocGen's code, received a lucrative job offer, and was arrested the day he was to start at Tower; thousands of pages of code were seized from his home.
- He was convicted at trial of trade-secret theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a)(2) and interstate transportation of stolen property under 18 U.S.C. § 2314, and sentenced to concurrent 36-month terms plus two years’ supervised release.
- On direct appeal the Second Circuit affirmed; certiorari was denied. Agrawal later filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (and alternatively sought coram nobis) alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel in four respects.
- The magistrate judge recommended denial of the § 2255 petition (petitioner was not in custody) and denied coram nobis relief because Agrawal failed to show (1) sound reasons for not pursuing timely § 2255 relief and (2) concrete continuing legal consequences; alternatively, the ineffective-assistance claims fail under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2255 relief is available | Agrawal sought to vacate sentence via § 2255 | Gov't: Agrawal was not "in custody" when petition filed | § 2255 relief unavailable—petitioner was released and not in custody when petition filed |
| Availability of coram nobis | Agrawal sought coram nobis as alternative | Gov't: No adequate cause for delay; no concrete ongoing legal consequences | Coram nobis denied—no sound reason for delay and harms alleged were speculative |
| Ineffective assistance: failure to raise that code is not a "product" under § 1832 | Agrawal: counsel should have argued Aleynikov-type theory that trading system is not a product | Gov't: case was unlike Aleynikov; prosecution proceeded on theory that code related to securities (products) in interstate commerce | No prejudice and no deficiency—the Aleynikov rule postdated trial and the record supported the alternate interstate-commerce theory; claim fails |
| Ineffective assistance: failure to challenge § 2314 (intangible code not "goods, wares, merchandise") and jury charge defects | Agrawal: counsel should have argued intangible code not covered and should have objected to jury instructions on knowledge, "goods" element, and value | Gov't: printed paper copies were transported (analogous to Bottone); overwhelming evidence of knowledge and value; objections would be meritless or harmless | Claims fail—arguments would have been meritless given controlling authority (Bottone) and overwhelming evidence; no Strickland prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Agrawal, 726 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2013) (affirms convictions; distinguishes Aleynikov and holds code related to securities satisfies § 1832 nexus)
- United States v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that a proprietary trading system not placed in interstate commerce cannot be the § 1832 "product")
- Fleming v. United States, 146 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) (coram nobis requires concrete continuing legal consequences; speculative employment harms insufficient)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Bottone, 365 F.2d 389 (2d Cir. 1966) (copies of documents containing valuable intellectual property can constitute "goods" for § 2314 when transported)
- Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) (distinguishes cases where intangible recordings do not satisfy § 2314 when no physical object is transported)
- Foont v. United States, 93 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1996) (coram nobis is extraordinary and limited to fundamental errors)