she says rajaratnam referred to inside information as "the edge."h a good inside source, she said he offered her money to stay at intel. >> khan: he said, "listen, i'll off i'll give you, you know, $100,000 just to stay there." i don't remember the number he offered me. but he did offer me money to just stay there and "keep giving me information." >> whitaker: and keep-- >> khan: yes. and i said, "no, there's no way." >> whitaker: --feeding him this inside information. roomy khan came to the united states from delhi, india on a scholarship at age 23. she earned three graduate degrees before joining intel. but she longed for the action of wall street and set out to build her own fortune. at the height of her success, she says she was worth $50 million. khan moved into this $10 million gated estate in the heart of silicon valley. she was living the life she wanted, where money was no object. >> khan: jewelry, painting. i mean, anything that you can think of, you know? >> whitaker: you had it all? >> khan: we had it all, yes. >> whitaker: the high life

rajaratnam's instant messages.unications where he would say, amd's revenues are going to be "x." before amd itself announced them. and they were accurate. mr. rajaatnam's predictions were accurate. >> reporter: michaelson joined the s.e.c. in 2006 and this was one of his first cases. he remembers combing through stacks and stacks of galleon's trading and phone records, instant messages, and e-mails. >> how many documents are we talking about? >> hundreds of thousands. >> hundreds of thousands? >> sometimes you'd have to sit there with a ruler to make sure you're getting exactly who is talking, what phone number's calling which phone number at what time. >> so you're connecting the dots? >> we're connecting the dots. then the next dot to connect is where's raj rajaratnam getting this information? >> reporter: finally, after six months of searching, they found the needle in the haystack in a single careless instant message from roomy khan. >> i texted him and i said, don't buy polycom. >> in writing? >> it was a text

i mean, when i look at various financial professionals, you know, steve cohn, raj rajaratnam, rajaratnam'soing, essentially, the same thing. maybe on a much larger scale. mickelson, i'm baffledful all mickelson has to do with pay back the money from the trading, and then that's it? he gets to go home with his family? i think he should stick with golf, and i think the sec should hand down a much harsher punishment. deirdre: i was going to say, clearly a slap on the wrist to him. craig, insider trading, believe it or not, is somewhat hard to prove. you have to prove that you got a specific piece of information that no one else has with the intent of trading on it. it can't just even be something that's passing in conversation. why would mickelson do this? he certainly earns a very good living as a pro golfer and through endorsements. >> well, i -- first off, i can answer your question, and jason's right, it should have been punished way more. the reason it wasn't is mr. mickelson has an incredible attorney by the name of greg craig who worked for the obama administration as a white house law

. >> there have been a series of cases that have come out of the raj rajaratnam series of prosecutionsrk where a number of traders have appealed to higher and higher courts and ultimately, a couple of traders charged in 2012 had their convictions overturned. the appeals court kind of redefined what insider trading is and what the government has to prove in order to successfully prosecute someone. david: it has to do with it who is giving you the info, right? >> it has to do with how much you know about the original source of information, whether they got a benefit in return for leaking this information, and there is some more debate about what that benefit had to have been. parts of the reason this definition even exists is because they don't want people who are, say, whistleblowers trying to report fraud to a reporter, to the outside world, who aren't doing it for personal gain. they don't want to silence those people. there are times when you can legitimately disclose confidential corporate information and you should not be accused of insider trading if someone even overhears you and

. >> there have been a series of cases that have come out of the raj rajaratnam series of prosecutionsrk where a number of traders have appealed to higher and higher courts and ultimately, a couple of traders who were charged in 2012 had their convictions overturned. and the appeals court kind of redefined what insider trading is and what the government has to prove in order to kind of, successfully prosecute someone. david: it has to do with it who is giving you the info, right? sheelah: it has to do with how much you know about the original source of information, whether they got a benefit in return for leaking out this information, and there is some more debate about what that benefit had to have been. and part of the reason this definition even exists is because they don't want people who are, say, whistleblowers trying to report fraud to a reporter, to the outside world, who aren't doing it for any personal gain. they don't want to silence those people, right? there are times when you can legitimately disclose confidential corporate information and you should not be accused of ins