Popularized in films like Limitless, legal smart drugs called Nootropics are becoming more and more prevalent in board rooms and on Wall Street.Keep reading »
For years and years before she was charged with insider trading in the Galleon case, people were aware of Danielle Chiesi’s schtick. Chieisi, often wearing some sort of get-up that involved fishnet stockings would show up to conferences, parties or other gatherings, seduce some well-informed men with her moves on the dance floor, maybe massage their thighs while they ate, perhaps sleep with them or maybe just engage in sexual banter over the phone for a period of months. Naturally she didn’t do any of this because she wanted to date or mate with these guys but because she was using them for hot tips and other things of that nature. Most people understood this. Bob Moffat did not. He thought there was something there, something real, so real that he’s twice cried in public over this woman, over what they had and over what he lost. Now though, he’s done. This chick is not worth his tears. (Also, he shouldn’t have to go to jail for that long because he did what he did out of love.)
The former IBM executive who pleaded guilty in the fed’s widespread insider trading case centering on hedge fund Galleon Group says his alleged accomplice and former mistress Danielle Chiesi “played” him.
Chiesi “manipulated” or “played” Robert Moffat for tips on IBM, Lenovo Group and Advanced Micro Devices, his lawyers wrote to a federal judge in Manhattan yesterday. She had a “business model” that involved mining information from corporate execs, they said. They said that while what he did was wrong, it wasn’t for profit — unlike the other accused parties. Moffat’s legal team asked US District Judge Deborah Batts, who is presiding over the case, to grant the 54-year-old tech executive probation rather than the six-month prison term prosecutors requested.
Moffat met Chiesi in 2002 and “over time” their relationship became “intimate,” according to the legal team. Moffat gave Chiesi confidential information based on “a misguided desire to appear important and knowledgeable,” the lawyers said.