Raj tried to break up Hector Ruiz and Danielle Chiesi, according to Anil Kumar.The whistleblower claims that Raj told him to get Ruiz, the CEO of AMD, to “stop telling Daniella” information.
Danielle Chiesi reportedly had an “intimate” relationship with Ruiz at the time, and he would tell her what was going on with the company; information that Raj wanted to know and was used to getting from Kumar.
Raj allegedly told Kumar that Chiesi “talks a lot to a lot of people,” rendering the information Raj got from Kumar, who spoke to him on a consulting basis at McKinsey and learned similar information, less valuable.
“He told me he didn’t want Daniella knowing because she talks to a lot of people,” says Kumar.
According to Kumar, Raj hoped that Kumar would speak to Ruiz, the McKinsey exec’s client, and ask him to stop telling Danielle things.
But Kumar refused. He says, “I would not go to Ruiz and say, ‘you know, I heard you’re having a relationship with Daniella and telling her things and could you not to do that?'”
He couldn’t see a situation where that would be appropriate, he says, because 1) in Indian custom it’s not appropriate, he respects older people and 2) he just “couldn’t see a situation where that would happen.”
Of course the assumption is that Raj wanted Kumar to sever Chiesi’s relationship with Ruiz not because he didn’t want her to know information (he tells her what he knows about AMD, as you’ll see in the transcript below), but because he was jealous — he was having his own “intimate relationship” with her.
In the wiretaps played for the courtroom in the trial of billionaire Raj Rajaratnam for insider trading, Danielle Chiesi buttered Raj up, saying, “[Bob Moffat another man she was having an “intimate relationship” with] is more like the geeky type, he’s not like charismatic like you are.”
“I’m a rogue,” Raj replied.
Later in their conversation, Raj gave Chiesi a tip about AMD and said, don’t tell anyone — even your boyfriends.
Here’s a transcript of the end of the conversation:
What it would mean for the case if Kumar’s testimony is true: It adds to the prosecution’s case that the information Anil gave to Raj was valuable, Raj valued it very much, it was not public knowledge and he wanted it to stay that way.
If Kumar’s testimony isn’t true: That Kumar’s information wasn’t valuable, it was pretty much public information, which supports the defence’s case.