SEC v. Mohit Verma (insider trading, 2026)
Settled
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 January 2026 the Securities and Exchange Commission settled with Mohit Verma, an ImmunityBio research scientist, finding that he bought put options on May 9 and 10, 2023 on knowledge that the FDA would delay approval of Anktiva, and sold after the stock fell about 55 percent, gaining about $41,000. He agreed to a cease-and-desist order, $41,008 in disgorgement, $4,133.85 in interest and a $41,008 penalty, payable in instalments.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 34-104651 |
| Date filed | 2026-01-21 |
| Date resolved | 2026-01-21 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | equities, options |
| Venue | Nasdaq |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Mohit Verma |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 |
| Techniques | Insider trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $41k
- Disgorgement
- $41k
- Prejudgment interest
- $4.1k
- Total relief
- $86.2k
- Alleged gain
- $41k
What is alleged to have happened
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued this settled order on January 21, 2026 (Release No. 34-104651).
The order finds he breached a duty of trust and confidence owed to ImmunityBio, charging Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.
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.
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
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 |