An interesting question. I was a Technical Director at NetApp which isn't a corporate officer (that is VP and above), and wasn't an identified insider (there are forms to file for that). NetApp had a policy against employees trading stock during "blackout" periods (typically two weeks before and two weeks after the earnings announcement) but were okay with and knew about my 'programmed' trades.

I think the SEC could have probably made a case that it was possible for me to know that NetApp's results were going to be better than the street expected (I didn't know that but I did know we weren't hurting like EMC was). And the money involved was small. I expect it was the timing more than the amount that triggered their call.

I was surprised I didn't hear from NetApp's general counsel at the time (I'm sure they were notified).

So if I said nothing? That would probably trigger a closer inspection. Sure its my right to not speak to them, but doing so would have probably made them more suspicious. And frankly, I have seen so many times when people trying to be "tricky" got into more trouble than if they had just been open with what was what that I have rarely felt tempted to push back on that sort of thing.

If you can prove you didn't do a crime, seems like pointing out why is going to be in your best interest if the fuzz comes calling. Remaining silent is sure a good idea generally, but this seems like one of the rare cases where I don't see the point.