But despite the expressions of shock and surprise, there has been little public criticism. This suggests an insufficient reckoning with the difficult questions his crimes raise about business in India.
Mr Gupta was by all accounts an admirable figure, as acknowledged by several jurors who convicted him last week for passing confidential information – gleaned from his Goldman Sachs directorship – to Raj Rajarathanum, head of the Galleon hedge fund. “We wanted him to walk, go home to his family and live a very prosperous life,” one said.
During the trial more than 300 business and other professional figures signed an open letter in praise of his character; a list including some of the most recognisable names in Indian business, such as Mukesh Ambani of Reliance Industries. Even after the verdict, the sense remains that Mr Gupta’s was a temporary lapse of judgment. Those who know him mutter that the punishment, which could include many years in jail, is excessive. (India elite yet to absorb Gupta lesson).
People mutter when they don’t want to be heard, Shri Crabtree. Mutter, the dictionary says, means ‘to speak indistinctly in low tones; To complain or grumble morosely’.
If 300 people have openly disagreed with US Justice Departments prosecution based on purely circumstantial evidence, on piffling amounts, going by US standards set during earlier prosecutions, it is no longer muttering.
If you mean mutter as in complain or grumble, why not use those words.
If the US jury, found it fit to qualify their conviction with words of comfort, (which you have reproduced) the feeling of a misplaced prosecutorial zeal is not grumbling or complaining.
It is outrage.