As the Rajaratnam trial opened in mid-March, I asked:

So what is the over/under on the number of people Danielle Chiesi will ultimately be alleged to have become "intimate" with in order to gain information for insider trading? We are already up to two and we're still on the first witness in the Rajaratnam trial. I'm conservatively setting the over/under at three.

Even with all of the evidence now in, determining the final number is not as easy as it may seem. It is important, however, that we get a ruling on whether evidence that came out near the end of the trial indicates a third alleged "intimate relationship" or not. To recap, the jury heard tapes of phone calls between Chiesi and a friend of hers who was a former Akamai Technologies Inc executive. In one of the calls, Reuters reports, the Akamai executive told Chiesi he had "a major present" for her. When Chiesi asked what it was, he whispered, "Information, information," and then told her he was going to stay at her apartment. 

The judge played only an edited version of the Chiesi-Akamai exec tapes for the jury because he found that portions were too risque. Prosecutor Jonathan Streeter told the court that "there may be ways in which we can make [the tapes] less blue, for want of a better word." He added that "other 'blue' language shows a close relationship."

Everyone who took the "under" obviously needs an answer on whether we are at 3 or not. It is a tough call but by the powers vested in me as commissioner of this Enforcement Action blog, I hereby rule that there is insufficient evidence of a third intimate relationship, and that everyone who took the under must be paid. So ordered!

Topics