SEC v. Bovorn Rungruangnavarat (insider trading, 2018)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 4, 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 (sec-bovorn-rungruangnavarat-insider-trading-2018) by email

In May 2018 the SEC charged Thai citizen Bovorn Rungruangnavarat with insider trading ahead of the Smithfield Foods acquisition. On 29 October 2019 the Northern District of Illinois entered a consent judgment, without admission or denial, enjoining him and ordering disgorgement of $274,339.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

$274k

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$274k

Alleged gain

$560k

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 SEC alleged that Bovorn and his brother Badin acquired call options, futures and shares of Smithfield after a friend who was an investment banker revealed the deal, controlling about 32.5 percent of average daily volume, and sold after the May 29, 2013 announcement for about $3.8 million together. Badin settled in 2013 for $3.2 million disgorgement and a $2 million penalty; those amounts were attributed to Bovorn in the earlier record and have been removed.

A later SEC litigation release shows the case ended in a settlement. On 29 October 2019 the court entered a final consent judgment against Bovorn that permanently enjoins him from violating the antifraud provisions and orders disgorgement of $274,339. He neither admitted nor denied the allegations. The release does not mention a civil penalty, prejudgment interest or any criminal case, so none is recorded, and it does not say how the disgorgement figure was calculated.

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

1. 2018-05-07 Litigation release published
2. 2019-10-29 Final consent judgment entered: injunction and $274,339 disgorgement

Primary documents

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

• SEC litigation release
• SEC litigation release LR-24654 (final consent judgment)

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 10, 2026. submit a correction.