SEC v. Filip Szymik (insider trading, 2014)
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 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission settled an action with Filip Szymik, alleging conduct this library classifies as insider trading. The release records a civil penalty of $47,100.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 34-73262 |
| Date filed | 2014-09-30 |
| Date resolved | 2014-09-30 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | equities, options |
| Venue | NYSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Filip Szymik |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 |
| Techniques | Insider trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $47.1k
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $47.1k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on September 30, 2014 as release 34-73262. The respondents named are Filip Szymik (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 and options, with NYSE identified in the release.
The relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $47,100. Penalty and disgorgement are distinct: disgorgement returns the gain, while the penalty is punitive. We store them separately so that aggregate figures across the library are not double-counted.
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 |
| SEC v. Benjamin Tesfaye (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-11 | Insider Trading | $18.7k | settled |
| SEC v. Jamal (“Jimmy”) Chammout and others (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-07-17 | Insider Trading | $776k | filed |