Market Manipulation. Search

SEC v. Quentin Louis Wilcox (insider trading, 2019)

Judgment entered

Machine-extracted, pending human review. The structured fields on this page were parsed automatically from the regulator's own release, linked below. Read the primary document before relying on any figure here, and tell us if something is wrong.

In 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a judgment against Quentin Louis Wilcox, alleging conduct this library classifies as insider trading. The release records disgorgement of $55,154, prejudgment interest of $3,744.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency SEC
Release number LR-24453
Date filed 2019-04-16
Date resolved 2019-04-16
Court U.S. District Court, District of Arizona
Status judgment
Asset class options
Criminal parallel No
Defendants Quentin Louis Wilcox (individual)
Techniques Insider trading

What was ordered

Civil penalty
Disgorgement
$55.2k
Prejudgment interest
$3.7k
Total relief
$58.9k
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 April 16, 2019 as release LR-24453. The respondents named are Quentin Louis Wilcox (1 individual, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, District of Arizona.

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 options.

The relief recorded in our data is disgorgement of $55,154, prejudgment interest of $3,744. Penalty and disgorgement are distinct: disgorgement returns the gain, while the penalty is punitive. We store them separately so that aggregate figures across the library are not double-counted.

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.

Timeline

  1. 2019-04-16 Litigation release published

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

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.

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 judgment
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 unknown
SEC v. Jesse R. Mitchell (insider trading, 2026) SEC 2026-08-21 Insider Trading filed
SEC v. Benjamin Tesfaye (insider trading, 2026) SEC 2026-08-11 Insider Trading judgment
SEC v. Jamal (“Jimmy”) Chammout and others (insider trading, 2026) SEC 2026-07-17 Insider Trading $497k judgment

Record added September 8, 2026. submit a correction.