Nate PearsonSekhar V. United StatesU.S 12-357 (2013)J. ScaliaQuestion Submitted: Petitioner Giridar C. Sekhar was convicted of extortion under federal law for potentially revealing an extramarital affair, unless the State Comptroller's General Counsel recommends that the pension fund the State to invest in a fund managed by Sekhar's company. The meaning of the word “property” would be determined by the courts under federal extortion law. They would also decide whether the attorney general recommended the “property” and whether it could be extorted under federal law. The petitioner had argued for restriction of the meaning or definition of the word “property”. He would have liked it to be brought to the sense of something that has value and is transferable. Facts: The New York State Comptroller is the sole and exclusive administrator of the Common Retirement Fund. The New York State Employees' Pension Fund and local government employees are all part of the Common Retirement Fund. The Comptroller is the primary authority responsible for approving the fund's investments. When making these difficult decisions, the comptroller is advised and monitored by his general counsel. In 2008, the general counsel of the New York State comptroller's office was ordered not to invest in a fund managed by FA Technology Ventures. The investment would have earned FA Technology Company millions in service fees. Later, the attorney general received an email from an anonymous sender. The sender was "blackballing a fund recommendation" and threatened to disclose the general counsel's extramarital affair to his wife, the controllers and everyone else involved with the fund if he... middle of paper. .. ..At what level (federal, state) was the case prosecuted? This case was prosecuted federally in the United States Supreme Court. Have there been civil proceedings in addition to criminal sanctions? No, there were no civil charges in this case. Did the victim(s) suffer losses of a certain amount? There was a possible loss of up to seven million dollars, which was allegedly taken by Sekhar and placed in his fund, which was then withdrawn for his personal use. Works Cited Cornell University, . (nd). Sekhar v. United States. At Cornell University Law School. Retrieved May 5, 2014 Sekhar v. United States (December 2013). On Findlaw.com. Retrieved May 5, 2014SEKHAR v. UNITED STATES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. May 14, 2014. .Works Cited