These seem to be 2 separate points. The original post said that he was exonerated because the FBI didn't have probable cause to search him. The article you linked said he was exonerated because the statute didn't cover HFT systems. I guess that makes sense if the reason the FBI didn't have probably cause was because they should have known that, even if everything Goldman alleged, he still wouldn't have broken any laws.
That seems to be the opinion espoused in the article. It was legal due to a "loophole".
> I guess that makes sense if the reason the FBI didn't have probably cause was because they should have known that, even if everything Goldman alleged, he still wouldn't have broken any laws.
From the article:
> On December 28, 2012, President Obama enacted the Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012, which clarifies the scope of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-39). The newly enacted amendments are intended to reverse the recent Second Circuit decision in United States v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012).
The only way that statement makes sense is if the author believed that the FBI failed due to a lack of the acts alleged by Goldman Sachs being a crime. Imo, anyway.
