SEC v. Tian "Tony" Tian (insider trading, 2024)
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 2024 the Securities and Exchange Commission settled with Tian Tian, a consultant to a foreign investment firm, finding that he bought Graf Industrial Corp. shares and warrants in June 2020 on confidential knowledge of Graf's planned merger with Velodyne Lidar, earning $72,075. Without admitting or denying the findings he agreed to pay $72,075.18 in disgorgement, $3,310.94 in interest and an equal penalty, and accepted an officer and director bar.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 34-99410 |
| Date filed | 2024-01-22 |
| Date resolved | 2024-01-22 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | equities |
| Venue | NYSE, Nasdaq |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Tian "Tony" Tian |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 |
| Techniques | Insider trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $72.1k
- Disgorgement
- $72.1k
- Prejudgment interest
- $3.3k
- Total relief
- $147k
- Alleged gain
- $72.1k
What is alleged to have happened
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued this settled order on January 22, 2024 (Release No. 34-99410, File No. 3-21833).
The order finds that Tian learned of the merger through his consulting work for an early-stage Velodyne investor and bought Graf securities in breach of his duty to that firm. Graf's shares and warrants rose 29.5 and 111.5 percent when the merger talks were reported.
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 |