SEC v. Vinay Kumar Nevatia (2016)

Judgment entered

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.

Report an error in this record (sec-vinay-kumar-nevatia-2016) by email

In June 2016 an SEC administrative law judge permanently barred Vinay Kumar Nevatia from the securities industry by default, after a federal court had enjoined him for fraudulently selling other people's securities and pocketing the proceeds.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency	SEC
Release number	3-16989
Date filed	2016-06-07
Date resolved	2016-06-07
Court	SEC administrative law judge
Status	judgment
Asset class	bonds, equities
Criminal parallel	No
Bars imposed	industry bar
Defendants	Vinay Kumar Nevatia (individual)
Cited as charged or alleged	Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Securities Act s.17(a) (statutes and rules cited in the document; not a finding that they were violated)
Techniques

What was ordered

Civil penalty: $630k
Disgorgement: $701k
Prejudgment interest: —
Total relief: $1.3m
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 June 7, 2016 as release 3-16989. The respondents named are Vinay Kumar Nevatia (1 individual, 0 entities).

The initial decision relies on a November 2015 default judgment of the Northern District of California, which ordered disgorgement of $701,013.94 including interest and a civil penalty of $629,800. The decision itself imposes the associational bar.

This library does not tag the matter to a manipulation technique. The underlying conduct is a fraud on investors in which the respondent sold shares that were not his; it is not naked short selling.

The monetary figures recorded are those of the district court judgment described in the decision. The decision itself imposes a permanent industry bar.

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.

Timeline

2016-06-07 Initial decision

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.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.