CFTC v. Dimitry Vishnevetsky (benchmark submission rigging, 2014)

Judgment entered

Machine-extracted, pending human review. The structured fields on this page were parsed automatically from the regulator's own release, linked below. Read the primary document before relying on any figure here, and tell us if something is wrong.

In 2014, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission obtained a judgment against Dimitry Vishnevetsky, alleging conduct this library classifies as benchmark submission rigging. The release records a civil penalty of $1.9 million. A parallel criminal matter is referenced in the release.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$1.9m

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$1.9m

Alleged gain

—

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars.

What is alleged to have happened

the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced this matter on March 11, 2014 as release 6875-14. The respondents named are Dimitry Vishnevetsky (1 individual, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois.

This library tags the matter as benchmark submission rigging, based on the conduct the regulator describes. Each tag links to a page explaining how that technique works, what statute it engages, and what penalties comparable actions have attracted. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

The conduct is recorded against futures.

The relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $1.9 million. Penalty and disgorgement are distinct: disgorgement returns the gain, while the penalty is punitive. We store them separately so that aggregate figures across the library are not double-counted.

The release references a parallel criminal proceeding. Where a criminal case exists, the civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately, because they resolve on different standards of proof.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

• Benchmark submission rigging — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2014-03-11 CFTC release published

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• CFTC release

The linked release is a work of the United States government and is not subject to copyright. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 8, 2026. submit a correction.