SEC v. Christopher Plaford (insider trading, 2019)
Judgment entered
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 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a judgment against Christopher Plaford, alleging conduct this library classifies as insider trading and mismarking. 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
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-24548 |
| Date filed | 2019-07-29 |
| Date resolved | 2019-07-29 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| Status | judgment |
| Criminal parallel | Yes: sentenced (Plaford (time served; Lumiere convicted at trial)), 2019-02-20 |
| Defendants | Christopher Plaford |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Advisers Act s.204A ; Advisers Act s.206 ; Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 |
| Techniques | Insider trading , Mismarking |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on July 29, 2019 as release LR-24548. The respondents named are Christopher Plaford (1 individual, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.
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 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.
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
- 2019-07-29 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Visium Asset Management, LP (insider trading, 2018) | SEC | 2018-05-08 | Insider Trading , Mismarking | $4.8m | settled |
| 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 |
| SEC v. Benjamin Tesfaye (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-11 | Insider Trading | $18.7k | settled |