SEC v. Wei Duan (insider trading, 2020)
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 April 2020 the SEC settled an administrative proceeding with Wei Duan, a Momo Inc. vice president, over insider trading in Momo securities. He agreed to pay disgorgement of about $60,005 and an equal civil penalty.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 3-19778 |
| Date filed | 2020-04-30 |
| Date resolved | 2020-04-30 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | equities |
| Venue | Nasdaq |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Wei Duan |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Securities Act s.17(a) |
| Techniques | Insider trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $60k
- Disgorgement
- $60k
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $120k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted and settled the proceeding on April 30, 2020 (Securities Act release 10778, Exchange Act release 88781, file 3-19778).
The order finds Duan, a Chinese citizen and Momo's vice president of corporate development, traded in Momo securities on material nonpublic information. He neither admitted nor denied the findings.
The order requires disgorgement of $60,005.27 and a civil penalty of $60,005. The earlier record showed disgorgement of $60,006 and no penalty.
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 |