SEC v. Visium Asset Management, LP (insider trading, 2018)
Settled
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 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission settled an action with Visium Asset Management, LP, alleging conduct this library classifies as insider trading and mismarking. The release records a civil penalty of $4.8 million, disgorgement of $4.8 million.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 3-18473 |
| Date filed | 2018-05-08 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | bonds, options |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Visium Asset Management, LP |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Advisers Act s.204A ; Advisers Act s.206 ; Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Securities Act s.17(a) |
| Techniques | Insider trading , Mismarking |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $4.8m
- Disgorgement
- $4.8m
- Prejudgment interest
- $721k
- Total relief
- $10.2m
- Alleged gain
- $7m
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on May 8, 2018 as release 3-18473. The respondents named are Visium Asset Management, LP (0 individuals, 1 entity).
This library tags the matter as insider trading and mismarking, 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 bonds and options.
The relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $4.8 million, disgorgement of $4.8 million. 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 2 techniques 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.
- Mismarking — 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. Christopher Plaford (insider trading, 2019) | SEC | 2019-07-29 | Insider Trading , Mismarking | — | judgment |
| 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 |