SEC v. Nipun Kumar Jami (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 May 2026 the Securities and Exchange Commission settled with Nipun Kumar Jami, finding that in November 2025 he used information from his spouse about Adobe's planned acquisition of Semrush to buy Semrush call options and stock before the November 19 announcement, earning $1,317,233 when the stock rose 74 percent. He reported his trading to the staff within a month. He agreed to a cease-and-desist order, $1,317,233 in disgorgement and a $658,617 penalty.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 34-105550 |
| Date filed | 2026-05-22 |
| Date resolved | 2026-05-22 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | equities, options |
| Venue | NYSE, Nasdaq |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Nipun Kumar Jami |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 |
| Techniques | Insider trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $659k
- Disgorgement
- $1.3m
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $2m
- Alleged gain
- $1.3m
What is alleged to have happened
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued this settled order on May 22, 2026 (Release No. 34-105550).
The order records his voluntary self-report in December 2025, reflected in a penalty set at half of the disgorgement.
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 |