SEC v. Brijesh Goel and Akshay Niranjan (insider trading, 2022)

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-brijesh-goel-insider-trading-2022) by email

In July 2022 the SEC charged Brijesh Goel and Akshay Niranjan with insider trading. Goel consented to a final judgment on February 6, 2024, and in April 2025 the SEC told the court it would not pursue monetary remedies against Niranjan because of a forfeiture paid in the related criminal case. No money figure is recorded for either defendant in the documents read.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

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 Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on July 25, 2022 as release LR-25449. The respondents named are Brijesh Goel and Akshay Niranjan (2 individuals, 0 entities).

This library tags the matter as insider trading, 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 fx and options.

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.

Outcome. The final judgment as to Brijesh Goel, entered February 6, 2024 in the Southern District of New York on his consent, permanently enjoins him from violating Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5; the judgment as opened contains no disgorgement or penalty terms. For Akshay Niranjan, the SEC filed a notice on April 1, 2025 saying it would not file a motion for monetary remedies referenced in the judgment against him, citing a monetary forfeiture he paid in the related criminal case (22-cr-00396). I did not open Niranjan's judgment itself, so his injunction terms are not described here, and the date recorded as resolved is the date of that notice.

The charges against both men were allegations in the SEC complaint; the documents above are consent-based and do not include findings. No sentence is stated in them.

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. 2022-07-25 Litigation release published
2. 2024-02-06 Final consent judgment entered as to Brijesh Goel
3. 2025-04-01 SEC notifies court it will not seek monetary remedies against Akshay Niranjan

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
• Final judgment as to Brijesh Goel (S.D.N.Y.)
• SEC notice re monetary remedies, Akshay Niranjan (S.D.N.Y.)

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 10, 2026. submit a correction.