School auditor or cop? 11th Circuit wades into scuffle with Georgia Tech, ex-prof

Joy Laskar was charged in 2010 with racketeering on accusations he misused Georgia Tech's resources to benefit his private business.(CN) — A former Georgia Tech engineering professor asked the 11th Circuit to consider whether two university auditors qualified as law enforcement officials when they investigated him in a racketeering case.Joy Laskar’s attorney told a three-judge panel Tuesday that the auditors, Phillip Hurd and Patrick Jenkins, failed to conduct a fair investigation into claims he misused university resources for the benefit of his company, Sayana Wireless.The auditors turned over their findings to state authorities, but they remained involved in the criminal investigation and helped steer the case toward prosecution, he said.The panel seemed skeptical.U.S. Chief Circuit Judge William Pryor said it appeared from the evidence that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation conducted its own investigation and independently decided to pursue charges.If there was a problem with the case, it belongs to law enforcement — not the auditors, the George W. Bush appointee said.Laskar was director of the Georgia Electronic Design Center, a research center where tech companies collaborate with researchers after paying membership dues. He was also co-founder and president of Sayana, a company that designed and developed high-frequency microchips.In 2009, Georgia Tech began investigating a $600,000 shortfall at the center, according to an appellate brief. Hurd and Jenkins learned during an audit that Sayana had billed the design center more than $1 million for the manufacture of prototype microchips. The microchips were then sent to a South Korean institute, which paid for the prototypes and research.Laskar failed to disclose in conflict-of-interest reports filed with the university between 2007 and 2010 that he had a 42.5% stake in Sayana, the brief states. Sayana also did not pay membership fees to use the center’s resources.The auditors reported the suspected malfeasance to the university, which in turn sent the report to the Georgia Department of Law.Laskar was charged in 2010 with two counts of racketeering, but a Superior Court judge dismissed the case four years later after finding the statute of limitations barred the charges.Laskar was fired by the university, which determined he diverted the school’s resources for the benefit of his company.Laskar filed a civil rights action against the auditors in 2018 in the Northern District of Georgia, claiming the government employees intentionally provided false and misleading information to law enforcement.U.S. District Judge William M. Ray, a Donald Trump appointee, initially dismissed the case because Laskar did not receive a “favorable termination” in criminal court, or a finding of innocence, which could maintain a malicious prosecution suit. The case was reversed on appeal, but Ray dismissed it again in 2025 after finding Laskar failed to support his claims that the auditors operated as law enforcement officers.On Tuesday, Michael Dailey of Anderson Dailey in Milton, Georgia, argued on Laskar’s behalf that the auditors were “continuously involved” in the criminal investigation.He pointed out some of the evidence seized by law enforcement was housed by the audit department and reviewed by the team. The lead investigator for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation also routinely sought out information and advice from the auditors, Dailey said.Pryor’s response was blunt: “So what?”The investigator may have relied on the auditors and their findings, but the evidence indicates she conducted an independent investigation that resulted in the indictment, Pryor said.U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, also a Trump appointee, said a prosecutor doesn’t present a case to a grand jury because an auditor tells him or her to do so.“They go there because they believe that they have a case to bring to this grand jury in order to get an indictment,” she said.U.S. Circuit Judge Embry Kidd, a Joe Biden appointee, suggested the auditors’ recommendation was no different from any other tip to law enforcement.“Sometimes investigations rely heavily on information provided by others,” he said. “That does not mean that the decision by the investigator wasn’t independent of the people providing the information.”Dailey said the auditors should have broadened the scope of their investigation. If they had, they would have realized that it was common practice for professors to use university resources to develop their startups.Kidd countered that it did not matter if others were engaged in the same practice.“A drug dealer might say other people in the house were dealing drugs too,” Kidd said. “Again, so what?”William Peters, senior assistant attorney general for the state of Georgia, said even law enforcement officers are not required to hunt down exculpatory information.“If trained police officers with arrest powers do not have that burden, then certainly university auditors do not,” Peters said.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads