SEC v. Yu-Cheng Lin (insider trading, 2017)

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-yu-cheng-lin-insider-trading-2017) by email

In June 2017 the SEC obtained a default judgment against Yu-Cheng Lin, a former Ubiquiti Networks employee accused of trading on inside information before three 2016 earnings announcements. The release states roughly $1.8 million disgorgement, $44,000 interest and a $5.4 million penalty, about $7.3 million in total.

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 SEC alleged that Lin, who worked at Ubiquiti from 2011 to 2015, bought Ubiquiti stock, call options and contracts for difference in U.S. and overseas accounts ahead of earnings announcements on May 5, August 4 and November 3, 2016, and that he also directed trading by an associate in Taipei in 2014. A court froze his assets in February 2017 and later held him in contempt for dissipating assets and refusing to repatriate funds.

The default judgment entered on June 12, 2017 permanently enjoins him and orders disgorgement of about $1.8 million, interest of about $44,000 and a penalty of about $5.4 million. The release gives only rounded figures, so the structured money fields are left empty.

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

1. 2017-06-19 Litigation release published

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 litigation release

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.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.