Look around these threads. There's a great deal of suspicion of espionage, and then there's the actual spy that compromised him (so, espionage -- a CEO of that importance falling for a honeypot is a big deal in and of itself).

Suspicion of espionage based on what evidence? Also the "spy" isn't confirmed to be a spy, and there are other explanations that are more plausible in the absence of evidence to the contrary.