Market Manipulation. Search

This action was dismissed. The allegations described below were not established. This page is kept online so that the outcome is visible alongside the original filing.

FCA v. Rahul Shah Individual (insider trading, 2013)

Dismissed

Machine-extracted, pending human review. The structured fields on this page were parsed automatically from the regulator's own release, linked below. Read the primary document before relying on any figure here, and tell us if something is wrong.

In 2013, the Financial Conduct Authority brought an action, since dismissed, against Rahul Shah Individual, alleging conduct this library classifies as insider trading. The release does not state a monetary figure that we were able to extract. A parallel criminal matter is referenced in the release.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency FCA
Date filed 2013-11-13
Date resolved 2013-11-13
Status dismissed
Asset class equities
Criminal parallel Yes
Defendants Rahul Shah Individual (individual)
Techniques Insider trading

What was ordered

Civil penalty
Disgorgement
Prejudgment interest
Total relief
Alleged gain
Penalty as published
£125k

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. This regulator states penalties in GBP. The figure is recorded as published and is not converted, so it does not appear in the USD totals or medians used elsewhere on this site.

What is alleged to have happened

the Financial Conduct Authority announced this matter on November 13, 2013. The respondents named are Rahul Shah Individual (1 individual, 0 entities).

This library tags the matter as insider trading, 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 equities.

The release references a parallel criminal proceeding. Where a criminal case exists, the civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately, because they resolve on different standards of proof.

The action was dismissed. We keep dismissed matters in the library precisely so that the outcome is visible alongside the original allegation.

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.

Timeline

  1. 2013-11-13 FCA final notice

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 published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

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 judgment
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 unknown
SEC v. Jesse R. Mitchell (insider trading, 2026) SEC 2026-08-21 Insider Trading filed
SEC v. Benjamin Tesfaye (insider trading, 2026) SEC 2026-08-11 Insider Trading judgment
SEC v. Jamal (“Jimmy”) Chammout and others (insider trading, 2026) SEC 2026-07-17 Insider Trading $497k judgment

Record added September 9, 2026. submit a correction.