SEC v. Chip Hackley (matched orders, 2019)

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.

Report an error in this record (sec-chip-hackley-matched-orders-2019) by email

In September 2019, the SEC settled administrative proceedings against Chip Hackley, an undisclosed control person of Holy Grail Company, over a scheme to sell shares through prearranged matched trades with an undercover FBI informant's purported network of brokers in return for a 40 percent kickback.

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 September 25, 2019 as release 3-19522. The respondents named are Chip Hackley (1 individual, 0 entities).

The order finds that from December 2016 to May 2017 Hackley, George Matin, Harold Minsky and another person agreed to pay kickbacks so that purported registered representatives would buy Holy Grail stock in trades matched to sales from an account controlled by one of them. A small May 2017 test trade was prearranged, and the SEC suspended trading before the larger scheme went ahead.

This library tags the matter as matched orders and undisclosed control blocks, 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 cease-and-desist order and bars. The order imposes no monetary relief that the record captures.

Hackley consented to the order without admitting or denying the findings.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with 2 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.

• Matched orders — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Undisclosed control blocks — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2019-09-25 Administrative proceeding instituted (cease-and-desist)

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 order

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.