OSC v. Fernando Postrado (insider trading, 2016)
Settled
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.
In 2016 the Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement with Fernando Postrado, who admitted insider trading in 2015 on tips from his son Andrei, then a KPMG employee. He agreed to a C$10,000 penalty, disgorgement of C$109,200 and C$4,250 in costs, with a five-year registrant and promoter ban.
The record
| Agency | OSC |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2016-05-17 |
| Date resolved | 2016-05-19 |
| Court | Capital Markets Tribunal (Ontario) |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | equities |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Fernando Postrado |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Ontario Securities Act s.76 |
| Techniques | Insider trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- C$10k
What is alleged to have happened
The Ontario Securities Commission issued its statement of allegations on May 17, 2016 and the Tribunal approved the settlement on May 19, 2016. The resolution date was previously recorded as 2015 because the file names of the Tribunal's PDFs carry that year; the documents themselves are dated May 2016.
Between July and September 2015 Fernando Postrado traded in securities after being tipped by his son Andrei Miguel Postrado, who had obtained confidential information at KPMG about reporting issuers.
The order imposes a C$10,000 administrative penalty (C$4,000 payable immediately), disgorgement of C$109,200 and C$4,250 in investigation costs, plus a five-year ban on acting as a registrant, investment fund manager or promoter.
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.
- Insider trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2016-05-16 Settlement Agreement
- 2016-05-17 Statement of Allegations
- 2016-05-19 Reasons and Decision
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.
- Tribunal proceeding
- Notice of Hearing
- Settlement Agreement
- Statement of Allegations
- Reasons and Decision
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Trijya Vakil and Neeraj Visen (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-09-04 | Insider Trading | $109k | settled |
| CFTC v. Gabriel Perez (insider trading, 2026) | CFTC | 2026-08-28 | Insider Trading | $65k | judgment |
| SEC v. Gavin Wolfe and others (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-21 | Insider Trading | — | filed |
| SEC v. Jesse R. Mitchell (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-21 | Insider Trading | — | filed |
| SEC v. Benjamin Tesfaye (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-11 | Insider Trading | $18.7k | settled |
| SEC v. Jamal (“Jimmy”) Chammout and others (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-07-17 | Insider Trading | $776k | filed |