SEC v. Artur Khachatryan, No. LR-26445, Central District of California (Dec. 16, 2025) — Press Release

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONLitigation Release No. 26445 / December 16, 2025Securities and Exchange Commission v. Artur Khachatryan, No. 25-cv-11863 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 16, 2025)SEC Files Settled Action as to Southern California Resident in Alleged Manipulative Spoofing SchemeOn December 16, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed settled charges as to Artur Khachatryan, a resident of Tujunga, California, for allegedly conducting a manipulative stock trading scheme known as spoofing over a two-year period and generating approximately $373,885 in ill-gotten gains.According to the SEC’s complaint, Khachatryan’s scheme involved placing orders for stock that he did not intend to execute – otherwise known as spoof orders. The complaint alleges that he placed these orders outside of regular market hours when the stocks were thinly traded and the prices were easier to manipulate. According to the complaint, as part of his alleged scheme, Khachatryan would rapidly place a series of spoof orders on one side of the market for a particular stock, which artificially moved the stock price in a direction of his choosing. The complaint further alleges that he then would place and execute orders on the opposite side of the market to take advantage of the price movement he had created, before quickly canceling his spoof orders. Khachatryan then allegedly repeated the same spoofing scheme on the other side of the market to move the stock price in the opposite direction and lock in his profits from trading at manipulated prices. The SEC’s complaint alleges that after multiple broker-dealers restricted trading in or closed Khachatryan’s accounts, he opened brokerage accounts in the names of other individuals to continue his manipulative trading.The SEC’s complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, charges Khachatryan with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint also charges Khachatryan with violating Section 9(a)(2) of the Exchange Act. Khachatryan, without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint, has consented to the entry of a final judgment, subject to court approval, imposing permanent injunctive relief for the charged provisions and ordering him to pay disgorgement of $373,885 plus prejudgment interest of $22,629.34, and a civil penalty of $112,165. The final judgment would also prohibit Khachatryan, for a period of four years, from, directly or indirectly, opening, maintaining or trading in any brokerage account(s) in his name, the names of any immediate family members, the name of any company over which he has any control, or the name(s) of any third party individuals, without providing the relevant broker-dealer(s) a copy of the final judgment entered against him.The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Sara Kalin and Matthew Koop of the Market Abuse Unit, and was supervised by Assistant Director Diana Tani and Market Abuse Unit Chief Joseph Sansone.

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONLitigation Release No. 26445 / December 16, 2025Securities and Exchange Commission v. Artur Khachatryan, No. 25-cv-11863 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 16, 2025)SEC Files Settled Action as to Southern California Resident in Alleged Manipulative Spoofing SchemeOn December 16, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed settled charges as to Artur Khachatryan, a resident of Tujunga, California, for allegedly conducting a manipulative stock trading scheme known as spoofing over a two-year period and generating approximately $373,885 in ill-gotten gains.According to the SEC’s complaint, Khachatryan’s scheme involved placing orders for stock that he did not intend to execute – otherwise known as spoof orders. The complaint alleges that he placed these orders outside of regular market hours when the stocks were thinly traded and the prices were easier to manipulate. According to the complaint, as part of his alleged scheme, Khachatryan would rapidly place a series of spoof orders on one side of the market for a particular stock, which artificially moved the stock price in a direction of his choosing. The complaint further alleges that he then would place and execute orders on the opposite side of the market to take advantage of the price movement he had created, before quickly canceling his spoof orders. Khachatryan then allegedly repeated the same spoofing scheme on the other side of the market to move the stock price in the opposite direction and lock in his profits from trading at manipulated prices. The SEC’s complaint alleges that after multiple broker-dealers restricted trading in or closed Khachatryan’s accounts, he opened brokerage accounts in the names of other individuals to continue his manipulative trading.The SEC’s complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, charges Khachatryan with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint also charges Khachatryan with violating Section 9(a)(2) of the Exchange Act. Khachatryan, without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint, has consented to the entry of a final judgment, subject to court approval, imposing permanent injunctive relief for the charged provisions and ordering him to pay disgorgement of $373,885 plus prejudgment interest of $22,629.34, and a civil penalty of $112,165. The final judgment would also prohibit Khachatryan, for a period of four years, from, directly or indirectly, opening, maintaining or trading in any brokerage account(s) in his name, the names of any immediate family members, the name of any company over which he has any control, or the name(s) of any third party individuals, without providing the relevant broker-dealer(s) a copy of the final judgment entered against him.The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Sara Kalin and Matthew Koop of the Market Abuse Unit, and was supervised by Assistant Director Diana Tani and Market Abuse Unit Chief Joseph Sansone.