華爾街的故事往往情節(jié)驚險刺激，吊起圍觀群眾的胃口。今夏又有新案例：7月初漢普頓宅邸開了一場“瘋狂”派對?！都~約郵報》是這么描述的，“派對上滿是香檳，幾十個穿著暴露的女郎穿梭其間，還有穿戲服別著槍的侏儒，”參加這場飲酒狂歡，又稱為 “喝酒馬拉松”派對的多達上千人，據(jù)稱派對結(jié)束后一座價值2000萬美元的豪宅被折騰得一塌糊涂。豪宅主人非常憤怒，《紐約郵報》并未提及此人姓名，但稱他計劃提起訴訟，要求賠償100萬美元。

這場派對攪動了國內(nèi)外媒體圈，從《名利場》到彭博通訊社再到英國電訊報都上了頭條，輿論紛紛指責(zé)派對主持人布雷特·巴納（Brett Bana）。事件后又爆出很多料，兩個星期后《紐約時報》也正式介入，發(fā)表了一篇從巴納角度出發(fā)的事件描述，并指出派對宅邸的主人是奧馬爾·阿馬納（Omar Amanat）。

Tales of Wall Street excess reliably outrage—and titillate—readers. This summer’s exemplar so far: a “wild” Hamptons party earlier this month. “Awash,” as the New York Post put it, “with champagne, scores of bikini-clad women and costumed gun-toting midgets,” 1,000 boisterous attendees of a bacchanal known as “Sprayathon” allegedly “wrecked a $20 million mansion.” The mansion’s furious owner, who the Post didn’t name, was reportedly planning to file a $1 million suit.

The party generated headlines in publications ranging from Vanity Fair to Bloomberg to U.K.’s the Telegraph and resulted in the firing of a Moore Capital hedge fund trader, Brett Barna, who hosted the affair. The story had enough legs that the New York Times published an article two weeks later offering Barna’s side of the imbroglio and identifying the owner of the party house as Omar Amanat.

對《財富》雜志的讀者來說，阿馬納這個名字應(yīng)該不陌生，他的經(jīng)歷比漢普頓豪宅夜宴來勁多了。上一次他出現(xiàn)在媒體的視野里還是2014年9月，彼時他正與俄羅斯房地產(chǎn)大亨弗拉迪斯拉夫·多洛寧（Vladislav Doronin）就超豪華酒店連鎖安縵（Aman）酒店的歸屬打得不可開交。二人聯(lián)合買下安縵酒店后，沒幾個星期就一拍兩散。后續(xù)各種糾紛倒是養(yǎng)肥了三個國家馬不停蹄上法庭的律師。

2016年7月13日的清早6點。聯(lián)邦探員闖入阿馬納租住的房子將他逮捕，他的住處位于新澤西州肖特山，價值475萬美元。第二天，一位聯(lián)邦法官宣布陪審團指控，稱阿馬納涉匯款詐騙、協(xié)助并教唆投資顧問欺詐，以及合謀實施證券詐騙等。根據(jù)指控書，阿馬納曾協(xié)助一家投資公司掩蓋虧損，還幫一家已破產(chǎn)的視頻科技公司Kit Digital哄抬股價。在一份新聞稿中，美國律師普利特·巴拉拉指控阿馬納“多年來靠謊言和詭計騙取了投資者上億美元”。

阿馬納被捕后，不少人幸災(zāi)樂禍。多洛寧在一份發(fā)給《財富》的聲明中稱，“阿馬納的過往終于要公諸于世了，挺不錯。我吃驚的只是，居然要等這么長時間?！币騼?nèi)幕交易要坐15個月牢的邁克爾·基梅爾曼發(fā)了一條推特稱，“隨便扔只貓都能砸到他的債主：奧馬爾·阿馬納根本沒錢保釋，騙子這下遭報應(yīng)了。”

阿馬納辯稱無罪，在一家聯(lián)邦懲戒中心呆了6天便被釋放了，保釋金250萬美元。聯(lián)邦法官發(fā)現(xiàn)阿馬納“很有可能潛逃”，所以勒令他交出護照，并且限制旅行，還命令他隨身攜帶電子跟蹤設(shè)備。（《財富》雜志曾發(fā)郵件列出一系列問題發(fā)給阿馬納的律師們和他本人，但律師并無回應(yīng)。《財富》雜志也曾聯(lián)系之前阿馬納的媒體聯(lián)絡(luò)人，但他們都表示如今已不為他工作。）

說說阿馬納其人，此前他屬于頗具文藝氣息的企業(yè)家，隨口就能引用魯米的詩，還身兼電影制片人，投資領(lǐng)域包括媒體、金融和科技行業(yè)，然而法庭起訴書仿若當(dāng)眾一棒擊落所有偽裝。他習(xí)慣了全球到處飛，談大生意，時而在創(chuàng)新者和行業(yè)顛覆者的新聞中出現(xiàn)，跟各色名人超模（其中一位超模叫海倫娜·烏杜娃，是他的第二任妻子）談笑風(fēng)生。阿馬納曾經(jīng)吹噓說29歲時就體驗到“各種成功”的感覺，還號稱自己被評為華爾街“十大最有影響力的技術(shù)專家之一”。15年后的今天，他面臨的或是牢獄之災(zāi)。

Amanat’s name may be familiar to readers of Fortune—and his tale is far wilder than the goings-on at a Hampton’s party mansion. When he last appeared in the publication, it was September 2014 and Amanat was embroiled in a bitter and colorful fight with Russian property mogul Vladislav Doronin over the ownership of the ultra-luxury hotel chain Aman Resorts. Within weeks of joining forces to buy the chain, the pair’s business partnership had shattered in spectacular fashion. The resulting conflict necessitated a small population of lawyers, spanning courtrooms in three countries.

Fast-forward to July 13, 2016. At 6:00 AM, federal agents arrested Amanat at the $4.75 million home he was renting in Short Hills, N.J. The following day, a federal judge unsealed a grand jury indictment. It charged Amanat with wire fraud, aiding and abetting investment adviser fraud, and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. According to the indictment, Amanat helped an investment firm hide losses, and helped inflate the value of shares of Kit Digital, a bankrupt video technology company. In a press release, U.S. attorney Preet Bharara charged that Amanat cheated investors “of millions of dollars through years of lies and deceit.”

Amanat’s arrest triggered considerable schadenfreude. “It is very satisfying to see that Omar Amanat’s chequered past is catching up with him, although I am surprised it has taken this long,” Doronin said in a statement to Fortune. Michael Kimelman, who served 15 months for insider trading, tweeted: “I could swing a cat & hit half a dozen people he owes money: Omar Amanat can’t afford to make bail #conman #karma.”

Amanat has pleaded not guilty and, after sitting in a federal correctional center for six days, he was released on $2.5 million bail. Finding there was a “significant risk of flight here,” a judge ordered Amanat to surrender his passport, restricted his travel, and ordered him to wear an electronic monitoring device. (Amanat’s attorneys did not respond to requests for comment or to a detailed list of questions emailed to them and to Amanat. Fortune also contacted the press representatives for Amanat in the past, but they said they no longer represent him.)

For Amanat, a Rumi-quoting entrepreneur, film producer, and investor in media, finance, and technology, his indictment was a humiliating public bludgeoning. He is accustomed to gallivanting around the globe, talking big deals, dropping the names of headline-making movers and shakers, and rubbing elbows with celebrities and supermodels (one of whom, Helena Houdova, was his second wife). Amanat was someone who boasted that at age 29, he had “already experienced a heady amount of worldly success” and touted that he had been named one of Wall Street’s “Top Ten Most Influential Technologists.” Now, a decade and a half later, he is facing possible prison time.

就在阿馬納以詐騙罪名被起訴一周前，有關(guān)派對豪宅的故事傳得沸沸揚揚。正如巴納告訴《財富》的一樣，這件事的開頭其實很單純。他想租個地方辦場慈善宴會，一個經(jīng)紀人就介紹他找阿馬納，因為阿馬納在新澤西州肖特山有套豪宅出租（實際上只是靠近漢普頓，并不在漢普頓）。巴納說阿馬納自稱人脈超廣又多金的企業(yè)家，但據(jù)巴納的描述他仿佛“非常缺錢”。巴納明確表示阿馬納開價25000美元現(xiàn)金出租5天（其實據(jù)房產(chǎn)證明，這棟房子并不屬于阿馬納?。?。巴納告訴阿馬納身上沒那么多現(xiàn)金，希望能通過Airbnb用信用卡支付。巴納稱，談判過程中阿馬納要求他找個自動柜員機先取出4000美元現(xiàn)金墊上。

他表示，最后雙方同意巴納在Airbnb上用美國運通卡支付。巴納還補充道，后來阿馬納開了輛賓利去房子里跟他見面?！笆潞罂?，這（阿馬納并不住在房子里）明顯是個危險信號?！卑图{說。

情況立即變糟。巴納說花27000美元租的房子（包括押金）里竟然有別人在住。他只好跟租客商量在后院辦慈善活動。阿馬納還向他提出了一系列需求，包括慈善活動的收入分成。

派對結(jié)束后兩人關(guān)系進一步惡化。巴納透露，阿馬納更說房屋受損，如果得不到賠償就威脅他。他還說，阿馬納發(fā)給過他一條信息（發(fā)送人的手機號與之前阿馬納向《財富》提供的號碼一致），內(nèi)容是：

“哪天晚上你毫無防備的時候，沒準會倒大霉（也許是因果報應(yīng)，也說不準我哪個朋友聽說這事幫我出頭），我自己不會把你怎么樣?！?/p>

7月6號，《紐約郵報》報道了這場派對。文章稱房主要求巴納賠償100萬美元修房子，還要告他。第二天Moore Capital公司就炒了巴納。后來巴納一邊報警稱阿馬納威脅他，一邊找媒體解釋自己的遭遇。雖然巴納的說辭基本上是對阿馬納的攻擊，不過有一個人基本證實了他的話，就是本事件所涉及的大宅的前任物業(yè)經(jīng)理理查德·布萊克。布萊克表示，找阿馬納收費經(jīng)常碰釘子，最后只能放棄?！拔胰胄?0年，從來沒見過他這么難纏的，”布萊克說，他還表示阿馬納為了錢，“騙人勒索什么都能干出來”。

現(xiàn)在的聯(lián)邦法院的起訴書是個更有力的證明。起訴書稱，阿馬納協(xié)助顧問公司梅登資本的老板史蒂芬·梅登（Stephen Maiden）欺詐投資者：“2009年2月左右至2012年6月左右，阿馬納伙同梅登等人設(shè)計并實施了一出騙局，向梅登資本的客戶隱瞞了一件事實：客戶在投資工具Enable上的投資已經(jīng)血本無歸，而Enable正是阿馬納的融資渠道（融資理由中有部分存在虛假陳述和誤導(dǎo)）。”起訴書還稱，“為了維系這一騙局，梅登在阿馬納知情和許可的情況下，炮制了虛假的客戶賬戶報表，不披露Enable虧損的事實。此外，阿馬納還曾向梅登資本的銀行賬戶匯入數(shù)十萬美元，應(yīng)付客戶的贖回請求，以繼續(xù)向梅登資本的投資者隱瞞Enable虧損的秘密?！?/p>

7月1日，梅登承認合謀實施證券和匯款詐騙；阿馬納涉嫌炒高股價的Kit Digital公司的前首席財務(wù)官也承認有罪。7月14日，Kit Digital前首席執(zhí)行官卡雷爾·伊薩·圖茲曼從哥倫比亞被引渡回美國，2015年9月他就已被哥倫比亞警方控制，面臨的指控是操縱市場和做假賬。他辯稱無罪。檢方稱此案還有個名叫瑞瑪·杰米的律師一同被指控，不過仍然在逃。阿馬納也于7月16日被捕。

《財富》雜志2014年的文章曾經(jīng)介紹阿馬納與多洛寧如何爭奪安縵酒店。事情的開端是，阿馬納去倫敦最高法院狀告多洛寧違反合同。多洛寧則辯稱阿馬納編織了一個巧妙的謊言。多洛寧在一份法律文件中稱阿馬納不僅隱瞞了自己的財務(wù)狀況，還陰險地用多洛寧的錢為酒店收購中自己應(yīng)付的3.58億美元買單。此外，多洛寧還指稱阿馬納行騙已有成熟的套路，稱其為“連環(huán)詐騙犯”?！敦敻弧肺恼轮邪磿r間列出了一系列針對阿馬納的指控和訴訟，包括與E*Trade之間經(jīng)年的法律糾紛，E*Trade曾從阿馬納手中收購業(yè)務(wù)。（不管是面對多洛寧還是E*Trade，阿馬納都堅稱無罪，還表示有個卷入這兩起糾紛的人威脅要取他的性命。）。此外，2008年美國金融業(yè)監(jiān)管局（FINRA）曾宣布永久禁止阿馬納與FINRA所有成員公司合作，因為他“一再蓄意”隱瞞法律判決和美國證券交易委員會對其的調(diào)查。盡管阿馬納總是自稱成功的企業(yè)家和資本掮客，但過去十年里一直處于破產(chǎn)狀態(tài)。

The story of the party house emerged a week before Amanat’s arrest on fraud changes. As Barna describes it to Fortune, the tale began innocently. He was seeking a rental house at which to hold a charity bash. A broker introduced him to Amanat, who was offering a large property in Sag Harbor, N.Y. (which is actually near, rather than in, the Hamptons). Barna says Amanat presented himself as a hyper-connected, wealthy entrepreneur, but then expressed what Barna describes as “an extreme need for money.” He asserts that Amanat asked for $25,000 in cash to rent the house (which, according to property records, is owned by someone other than Amanat) for five days. Barna says he told Amanat that he didn’t have that sort of cash on him and planned to pay for the rental with a credit card through Airbnb. At one point in their negotiations, he asserts, Amanat responded by asking whether Barna could go to an ATM, withdraw $4,000, and pay that portion in cash.

Eventually they agreed Barna would charge his American Express card through Airbnb, he says. Amanat, he adds, later turned up at the house in a Bentley. “In hindsight, this should have been a big red flag,” Barna says.

Things went sour immediately. Barna says the house he’d spent $27,000 to rent (including a security deposit) turned out to be occupied. He ended up making an agreement with the tenants to use the backyard only for the duration of the charity event. Amanat, he alleges, then gave him a list of demands, including a cut of the charity proceeds.

Relations worsened after the party. Barna says Amanat insisted he damaged the house and threatened him if he didn’t pay up. One text Barna says he received from Amanat (which appeared to come from the same phone number that Amanat had previously provided to Fortune) stated:

“When you least expect it one night something so unspeakably bad is going to happen to you (maybe it’s karmic law maybe it’s a friend of mine who heard what you did to me) Personally I won’t do a thing to you.”

On July 6, the Post first reported on the party. The story stated that the house’s owner had accused Barna of $1 million in damages and planned to sue him. The next day Moore Capital fired Barna. Barna has since filed a police report against Amanat for harassment and has been making the rounds explaining his side of the story. Though much of Barna’s account boils down to his word against Amanat’s, one person—the former property manager for the house in question—offers a view that is consistent with Barna’s. Richard Black says he regularly had to fight to get paid by Amanat and eventually quit. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years and never met anyone like him,” Black says, adding that Amanat would “swindle and shake people down.”

And now there’s the federal indictment, which blames Amanat for helping Stephen Maiden, who ran an investment advisory firm called Maiden Capital, defraud investors. According to the indictment, “between in or about February 2009 and in or about June 2012, Amanat, along with Maiden and others, devised and carried out a scheme to hide the fact that investments by Maiden Capital clients in Enable, an investment vehicle for which Amanat raised money (based, in part, on false and misleading representations), had been lost. To facilitate the scheme,” the indictment continues, “Maiden, with the knowledge and approval of Amanat, generated fictitious client account statements that failed to disclose the Enable losses. In addition, Amanat wired hundreds of thousands of dollars to a Maiden Capital bank account to support Maiden Capital, including to allow Maiden to repay investors whose redemption requests could not be forestalled and thus to continue to keep secret from Maiden Capital investors the Enable losses.”

On July 1, Maiden pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud; the former CFO for Kit Digital, whose stock Amanat allegedly helped inflate, also pleaded guilty. On July 14, former Kit Digital CEO Kaleil Isaza Tuzman was extradited to the U.S. from Colombia, where he’d been held since September 2015, to face market manipulation and accounting fraud charges. He has pleaded not guilty. Jameel, a lawyer indicted in the case, remains a fugitive, according to prosecutors.

Fortune’s 2014 article explored Amanat’s battle with Doronin over Aman Resorts. Amanat had lobbed the first legal grenade in London’s High Court, accusing Doronin of breach of contract. For his part, Doronin contended that Amanat had engineered an elaborate con game. Doronin claimed in legal filings that Amanat had not only misrepresented his finances, but had underhandedly used Doronin’s money to pay for Amanat’s part of the $358 million hotel deal. What’s more, Doronin alleged that Amanat had an established pattern of such behavior, calling him a “serial swindler.” Fortune’s article chronicled a long list of accusations and lawsuits against Amanat, including a multi-year legal fight with E*Trade , which acquired a business from him. (Amanat denied any wrongdoing in the Doronin and E*Trade cases—and also claimed that his life had been threatened by an adversary in both disputes.) Further, in 2008 the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) permanently banned Amanat “from associating with any FINRA member firm in any capacity” because he “willfully and repeatedly” failed to disclose legal judgments and a past SEC investigation. Moreover, Amanat, who held himself out as a successful entrepreneur and dealmaker, had been in bankruptcy for the better part of the last decade.

2014年《財富》報道阿馬納時就發(fā)現(xiàn)很多漏洞。想找到答案就得橫跨三大洲采訪數(shù)十人，還得鉆研成千上萬頁的文件。其實阿馬納身上很多小細節(jié)都沒人能搞清，比如年齡。一開始他稱自己40歲，后來又說41歲。法庭上看到出生證明文件后，阿馬納的媒體聯(lián)絡(luò)人表示他其實是42歲。阿馬納在網(wǎng)上的簡歷稱他榮獲過艾伯特·P·愛因斯坦科技獎，獎項為杰出企業(yè)公民。然而我們找不到這個獎存在的證據(jù)（而且愛因斯坦根本沒有中間名）。

自從2014年《財富》雜志報道阿馬納后，他面臨的法律糾紛越來越多。今年3月倫敦最高法院裁定安縵酒店收購案中阿馬納敗訴。他用來收購酒店的公司Peak Hotels & Resorts Limited被迫清算，還要向多洛寧和另一相關(guān)人士支付1200萬英鎊（1570萬美元）的訴訟費用。四個月后，同案裁決提到阿馬納“性喜詐騙”，而且“在美國有確鑿的欺騙行為?！?/p>

不過事件在3月3日曾出現(xiàn)驚人轉(zhuǎn)折。就在倫敦最高法院宣判不到一周前，阿馬納在紐約請求安縵酒店集團強制破產(chǎn)。在一份手寫的訴狀中，阿馬納稱自己和旗下兩家公司被拖欠500萬美元費用。四天后，阿馬納似乎還贏得了一些 道支持，他的索賠行動中加入了新成員，安縵酒店年過八旬的創(chuàng)始人阿德里安·澤卡（Adrian Zecha），英國對沖基金經(jīng)理喬治·羅賓森，巴黎投資公司Fonde Investment Capital等表示，它們被拖欠約7000萬美元費用。

但這邊話音未落，那邊又有新轉(zhuǎn)折。包括澤卡在內(nèi)的三個索賠方突然撤訴。澤卡提交的法律文件稱“之前的訴訟請求他并不知情”。（澤卡對此并未置評。）

此后又有一人退出。這次是與阿馬納聯(lián)合請求安縵酒店強制破產(chǎn)的旗下公司之一代表律師威廉·巴爾迪加。巴爾迪加解釋時引用了紐約州約束律師行為的條款，其中稱如果客戶的法律行為“目的僅是騷擾或惡意傷害他人”，律師可以選擇退出。（巴爾迪加拒絕接受采訪。）

3月28日，紐約州破產(chǎn)法院法官雪莉·查普曼駁回了阿馬納的讓安縵酒店破產(chǎn)的請求。查普曼法官在一場聽證會中稱，這起訴訟“并未充分遵從破產(chǎn)法律規(guī)定?！?/p>

在此之前，阿馬納與安縵酒店之爭就已涉及不少法律糾紛。Vinland Capital狀告阿馬納違反排他協(xié)議，協(xié)議規(guī)定由Vinland Capital獨家負責(zé)安縵酒店收購案的融資。（Vinland Capital的訴訟已被駁回，目前正在上訴。）去年阿馬納的律師羅納德·明可夫提交請求，不再擔(dān)任顧問，稱阿馬納“故意不支付款項”，而且雖然幾經(jīng)索要，阿馬納“并不打算支付之前的律師費，將來的更沒指望?！?/p>

安縵酒店收購案還只是阿馬納身上諸多法律糾紛之一。例如，5月加州法官在缺席審判中裁定，阿馬納應(yīng)向電視劇《馬爾科姆的一家》演員賈斯汀·貝菲爾德支付拖欠的120萬美元片酬。根據(jù)之前的調(diào)解結(jié)果，裁定阿馬納的公司支付90萬美元的罰金，因其“觸犯聯(lián)邦證券法律，違反合同規(guī)定以及無力支付承兌匯票?！绷硪黄鸢讣?，阿馬納旗下電影公司在為小說《疾病解說者》改編電影融資時，因數(shù)百萬美元資金不翼而飛遭到指控。根據(jù)法庭記錄，阿馬納第一任妻子也提交訴訟請求，要求前夫履行贍養(yǎng)和監(jiān)護責(zé)任。凡此種種不勝枚舉。

A lot of things about Amanat didn’t add up when Fortune reported on him in 2014. Untangling the answers required interviewing dozens of people across three continents and poring over thousands of pages of documents. Even simple matters such as Amanat’s age were a puzzle. Initially, he said he was 40. Then 41. After being presented with a birth date in court documents, Amanat’s press representative agreed that he was in fact 42 at the time. Amanat’s web bio claimed that he was awarded the Albert P. Einstein Technology Award For Outstanding Corporate Citizenship. However, we could not find any evidence that such an award exists (and Einstein did not have a middle name).

Since Fortune wrote about him in 2014, Amanat’s legal entanglements have been mounting. In March he lost his battle in the London High Court over Aman. Peak Hotels & Resorts Limited, the entity used to purchase the resort, was forced into involuntary liquidation and agreed, in a settlement, to pay Doronin and a second person a total of ￡12 million ($15.7 million) in court costs. Four months earlier, in the same case, a High Court justice cited Amanat’s “established propensity to fraud,” and his “established record of dishonesty in the USA.”

In a bizarre turn, on March 3, less than a week before the London court made its ruling, Amanat filed a petition in New York to force Aman Resorts Group LTD. into involuntary bankruptcy. In the handwritten petition, Amanat claimed that he and two of his entities were owed $5 million in unpaid fees. Four days after that, Amanat seemed to get some moral support: His claim was amended to include Adrian Zecha, Aman’s octogenarian founder, British hedge fund manager George Robinson, and the Parisian investment firm Fonde Investment Capital, among others, alleging they were owed some $70 million in unpaid fees.

But almost before the ink dried on the new claims, a new twist occurred. Three of the new claimants, including Zecha, suddenly withdrew. Zecha’s legal papers asserted that the “amended petition was filed without his knowledge.” (Zecha did not return a request for comment.)

Then came another withdrawal. This time it was William Baldiga, an attorney representing an entity aligned with Amanat in the involuntary bankruptcy. In his petition, Baldiga cited a New York rule governing lawyers’ conduct that enables them to remove themselves from a case if their client is pursuing legal action “merely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person.” (Baldiga declined to be interviewed.)

On March 28, Judge Shelley Chapman of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York dismissed Amanat’s attempts to force Aman into bankruptcy. The judge stated in a hearing that the suit “doesn’t appear to be an appropriate use of the bankruptcy process.”

Other litigation relating to Amanat and Aman Resorts predates that battle. Vinland Capital sued Amanat for allegedly breaching an exclusive agreement to have Vinland raise money for the Aman deal. (Vinland’s suit was dismissed and is on appeal.) Last year Amanat’s lawyer in that case, Ronald Minkoff, filed papers to withdraw as counsel, citing Amanat’s “deliberate failure to pay outstanding invoices,” and that despite “many demands,” Amanat had “not made adequate provision for paying past or future fees.”

And Aman is not the only recent source of litigation for Amanat. For example, in May a California judge ordered a $1.2 million default judgment against him for failing to pay former Malcolm in the Middle actor Justin Berfield and his company $900,000, under the terms of a past mediation, for “federal securities law violations, breaches of contract and failure to pay a promissory note.” Another case, involving financing for a film version of the novel Interpreter of Maladies, led to a suit against Amanat’s film company claiming that several million dollars had gone missing. According to court records, Amanat’s first wife also has several open cases against her ex-husband relating to support and custody. The list goes on.

Amanat’s recent criminal indictment also cites a role by an unnamed co-conspirator. In announcing the indictment, Bharara, who has aggressively prosecuted white-collar crime, said that, “the investigation is continuing,” which leaves open the possibility of another indictment. Numerous interested parties are waiting to see how this all plays out. When it comes to the story of Omar Amanat, the only certainty is that there will be plenty more twists and turns.