SEC v. Judy K. Wolf (2014)

Dismissed

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 4, 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-wolf-2014) by email

In October 2014 the SEC instituted proceedings against Judy K. Wolf, a Wells Fargo Advisors compliance officer, alleging she altered a document of her trading review before it was produced to Commission staff investigating possible insider trading. An initial decision of August 4, 2015 dismissed the proceeding, and the Commission's notice of September 23, 2015 made it final.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

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 October 15, 2014 as release 3-16195. The respondent named is Judy K. Wolf (1 individual). The order alleges that, while working in the firm's Retail Control Group, which reviewed suspicious trading for misuse of confidential information, Wolf altered a summary of her review of a registered representative's trading before it went to Commission staff, causing the firm to breach its recordkeeping and production duties. The staff's underlying investigation concerned a registered representative's possible insider trading, and the order mentions the Burger King trades of two other people only as background.

Wolf is charged with altering a record, not with trading or tipping, so this library no longer tags the matter as insider trading. No other technique fits, so it carries no technique tag.

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.

Outcome. The Commission's notice of September 23, 2015 says no petition for review was filed, so the administrative law judge's initial decision (Release No. 851, August 4, 2015), which dismissed the proceeding, became the Commission's final decision as to Wolf. The notice does not give the judge's reasons, and we did not open the initial decision, so we cannot say why the allegations failed. No sanction was imposed.

Timeline

1. 2014-10-15 Administrative proceeding instituted (cease-and-desist)
2. 2015-09-23 Notice that the initial decision dismissing the proceeding has become final

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• SEC order
• SEC notice that initial decision has become final (34-75969)

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.

Same matter

The library links these 2 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.