SEC v. Avaneesh Krishnamoorthy (insider trading, 2017)
Judgment entered
Checked against the primary document on October 3, 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 September 2017 a court entered a judgment against Avaneesh Krishnamoorthy, a former investment bank risk manager who traded on advance news of a private equity takeover. It orders disgorgement of $78,712.80, deemed satisfied by forfeiture or payment to prosecutors, plus $1,216.28 interest, and he agreed to lifetime industry and penny stock bars.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-23954 |
| Date filed | 2017-09-29 |
| Date resolved | 2017-09-29 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Criminal parallel | Yes: criminal case referred to, outcome not stated in the document (Avaneesh Krishnamoorthy), U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| Bars imposed | lifetime securities industry bar, penny stock bar |
| Defendants | Avaneesh Krishnamoorthy |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Securities Act s.17(a) |
| Techniques | Insider trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- $78.7k
- Prejudgment interest
- $1.2k
- Total relief
- $79.9k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The final judgment, entered September 26, 2017, enjoins Krishnamoorthy under Section 17(a) and Section 10(b), and orders disgorgement of $78,712.80 deemed satisfied either by a forfeiture order in the parallel criminal case or by proof of payment to the U.S. Attorney's Office, with $1,216.28 in interest. He also agreed to lifetime bars from the securities industry and from penny stock offerings.
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
- 2017-09-29 Litigation 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.
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 |
| SEBI v. Arun Kumar Somani and others (insider trading review, Indian Oil Corporation, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-08-13 | Insider Trading | — | dismissed |
| SEC v. Benjamin Tesfaye (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-11 | Insider Trading | $18.7k | settled |