https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2012/11/27/sen...
If you read the complaint, the trial transcript, or even the top post here, it's abundantly clear the so-called investigation relied solely upon the word of Goldman Sachs's employees. The FBI agent even admitted that he did not understand the nature of the crime at the time he filed the complaint.
>"McSwain later conceded that he didn’t seek out independent expert advice to study the code Serge Aleynikov had taken. (“I relied on statements from Goldman employees.”) He himself had no idea of the value of the stolen code (“Representatives of Goldman told me it was worth a lot of money”) or if any of it was actually all that special (he based his belief that the code contained trade secrets on “representations made by members of Goldman Sachs”)...The F.B.I.’s investigation before the arrest consisted of trusting Goldman’s explanation of some extremely complicated stuff, and 48 hours after Goldman called the F.B.I., Serge was arrested."
Your argument amounts to: "Sure, but the guy was guilty and only got off on a technicality, so who cares."
People keep explaining the dire problems with this viewpoint, and I don't know why it needs to be continually repeated.
Silly analogies lead to silly conclusions, because they inherently obscure essential facts in the comparison.
This wasn't a piece of tangible property, which the agent could understand. This was an immensely complicated issue to a lay person who admitted that he didn't really understand what had been stolen or how much it was worth.
He just listened to Goldman Sachs say trust us and made an arrest within 48 hours.
If you don't understand why its disturbing that the FBI blindly did the bidding of one of the most powerful corporations on Earth, there's simply no point in continuing to debate the issue.
Except that you're starting with a false premise: the offenses for which Aleynikov was initially charged -- theft of trade secrets, and transportation of stolen property in interstate commerce -- were in no way as clear cut as simply "taking a painting from a private gallery." As you are no doubt aware, from your detailed knowledge of the case.
you think the police should need a statement from a 3rd party art historian in order to make an arrest?
What the FBI (and the prosecution team) have primarily been faulted for has been their (by now obvious, if not admitted) failure to understand the basic nature of the charges against the accused -- to the extent that they missed the fact that his conduct would not even have constituted an offense against either statute.
In addition, yes, there's the matter of how much the "stolen" (or rather, copied) bits were actually "worth" (or whether they could, in fact, "be used to manipulate markets in unfair ways", per GS's initial complaint.) Should the FBI have waited to consult an outside authority to make an independent assessment of these claims before making an arrest? That I cannot say.
But that both the premier criminal investigative arm of the richest country in the world -- and the highest-profile prosecution office tasked with keeping us safe from white collar crime, in that same country -- should have known that the "value" of copied source code just might be a teensy, weensy bit trickier and more nuanced to assess than that of say, an Edvard Munch painting pilfered from a major gallery in broad daylight? Or that they should have like, you know, read the actual text of the statutes he was being prosecuted under before filing actual charges against him (and throwing him in the klink for a year as a protective measure)? We should hope so.