SEC v. J. Patrick O'Neill and Robert H. Bray (insider trading, 2016)

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-j-patrick-o-neill-insider-trading-2016) by email

The SEC announced on August 18, 2016 that a Massachusetts federal court had entered a consent final judgment against J. Patrick O'Neill, a former Eastern Bank officer accused of tipping a friend about the bank's acquisition of Wainwright Bank. The judgment enjoins him from insider trading and states no money; the case against the friend, Robert Bray, was still pending in later releases.

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 August 18, 2016 as release LR-23621. The respondents named are J. Patrick O'Neill and Robert H. Bray (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 equities.

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.

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.

SEC release 23621 reports that on August 18, 2016 the District of Massachusetts entered a final judgment against O'Neill, to which he consented, permanently enjoining him from violating Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5; the release states no disgorgement or penalty. He had pleaded guilty in the parallel criminal case and been sentenced to one year of probation and a $5,000 fine. This outcome covers O'Neill only. The release says the SEC's case continued against Robert Bray, who was convicted at a criminal trial and sentenced to two years in prison, and a March 2017 release (23764) reports the civil case against Bray still pending; how it ended for Bray was not checked. The SEC action was originally filed on August 18, 2014, so this record's filed date reflects the release rather than the filing. Checked on 2026-10-04.

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. 2016-08-18 Litigation release published
2. 2016-08-18 Consent final judgment entered against O'Neill (SEC LR-23621)

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 23764 (case against Bray pending)

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.