CFTC v. Navinder Singh Sarao (layering, 2016)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 2, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (cftc-navinder-singh-sarao-layering-2016) by email

In 2016, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission obtained a consent order against Navinder Singh Sarao and Nav Sarao Futures Limited PLC. A federal consent order finds Sarao and his company spoofed and manipulated the E-mini S&P 500 with a dynamic layering program, including on the day of the May 6, 2010 flash crash. It imposes a penalty of about $25.7 million and disgorgement of about $12.9 million, around $38.6 million together. The release records a civil penalty of $25,743,175, disgorgement of $12,871,587. A parallel criminal matter is referenced in the release.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$25.7m

Disgorgement

$12.9m

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$38.6m

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 November 17, 2016 as release 7486-16. The respondents named are Navinder Singh Sarao and Nav Sarao Futures Limited PLC (1 individual, 1 entity).

This library tags the matter as layering, price manipulation and spoofing, 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.

A federal consent order finds Sarao and his company spoofed and manipulated the E-mini S&P 500 with a dynamic layering program, including on the day of the May 6, 2010 flash crash. It imposes a penalty of about $25.7 million and disgorgement of about $12.9 million, around $38.6 million together.

The conduct is recorded against futures, with CME identified in the release.

The relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $25,743,175, disgorgement of $12,871,587. 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 3 techniques 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.

• Layering — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Price manipulation — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Spoofing — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2016-11-17 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.

Same matter

The library links these 2 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

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

Record added September 20, 2026. submit a correction.