SEC v. Suyun Gu, et al. (wash trading, 2025)
Judgment entered
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.
In July 2025, a New Jersey federal court entered a final judgment against Suyun Gu, ordering US$621,703 in disgorgement, US$134,663 in interest and a US$621,703 penalty for wash trading put options in 2021 to collect liquidity rebates.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-26355 |
| Date filed | 2025-07-21 |
| Date resolved | 2025-07-09 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | options |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Suyun Gu |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Exchange Act s.9(a)(1) ; Securities Act s.17(a) |
| Techniques | Wash trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $622k
- Disgorgement
- $622k
- Prejudgment interest
- $135k
- Total relief
- $1.4m
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on July 21, 2025 as release LR-26355. The respondents named are Suyun Gu (1 individual, 0 entities).
On summary judgment in September 2024, the court found that Gu executed more than 11,000 wash trades among accounts he controlled, in about three million option contracts, and went to lengths to avoid detection, continuing at other brokers after his accounts were suspended and even after his co-defendant sent him an article defining wash trading.
This library tags the matter as wash 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.
Disgorgement of $621,703, prejudgment interest of $134,663, and a civil penalty of $621,703 (total about $1.38 million), and a permanent injunction.
The court granted summary judgment to the SEC on all claims against Gu before entering this judgment.
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.
- Wash trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2025-07-21 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.