SEC v. Milan V. Patel, No. 2:23-cv-00026-RWS, Northern District of Georgia (Feb. 16, 2023) — Complaint

UNI
TED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
)
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,  )
 )
Plaintiff,    ) Civil Action No.
 )
v.  ) COMPLAINT
 ) ECF Case
MILAN V. PATEL           )
 ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant.    )
  )
P
laintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) files this Complaint
against Defendant Milan V. Patel (“Patel” or “Defendant”) and alleges as follows:
SUMMARY
1.Between at least December 2017 and January 2020 (the “Relevant Period”), Patel
participated in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the market for securities of publicly-traded
companies by disseminating false rumors designed to cause the price of the target companies’
stock and call options to rise temporarily.
2.Patel  received the false rumors by telephone or instant messages from Charles
Parrino (“Parrino”), Barton Ross (“Ross”) or Anthony Salandra (“Salandra”).  Throughout the
scheme, each of them either drafted, edited, or reviewed the rumors before one of them sent the
rumors to Patel.
3.Upon receiving the rumors, which he knew to be false, Patel told Mark Melnick
(“Melnick”), formerly the host of a daily subscription based real-time trading webcast, the names
of the companies that were the subject of the rumors and directed Melnick to purchase securities
2:23-CV-0026-RWS

 2
in those companies.  Melnick then pulled up the companies’ technical charts on his screen and
informed his webcast subscribers that he was hearing “chatter” about those companies.
4. Patel further disseminated the false rumors to his contacts at other real-time
financial news services, financial chat rooms, and certain other financial news purveyors via
instant messages, intending to profit from the price movements the rumors were designed to
cause.  Patel’s contacts then immediately disseminated the rumors further through their news
services and in chat rooms and message boards.  As a result, the prices of the companies’
securities were artificially inflated for a brief period until they were corrected by the market.
5. During the Relevant Period, Patel  executed trades designed to profit from the
price manipulation caused by his dissemination of these false rumors at least 119 times, earning
at least $1,125,263 in ill-gotten gains.
6. By virtue of the conduct alleged herein, Patel violated, and unless restrained and
enjoined will violate again, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), 15
U.S.C. § 77q(a); Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15
U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
7. The Commission brings this action pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d) and 78u-1.
The Commission seeks a judgment:  (1) permanently enjoining Patel  from engaging in the
transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint; and (2) ordering
Patel to pay disgorgement of $1,125,263, plus prejudgment interest, and civil money penalties
pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), and Section 21(d)(3), (5), and
(7) of the Exchange Act,  15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3), (5), and (7).  The Commission also seeks any
other relief the Court may deem appropriate pursuant to Section 21(d)(5) of the Exchange Act,
15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5).

 3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 20 and 22 of the
Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77t and 77v, and Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 27 of the Exchange Act,
15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), 78u-l, and 78aa.
9. Venue lies in this District pursuant to Section 22 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 77v, and Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa.  Certain of the acts, practices,
transactions, and courses of business constituting the violations occurred within the Northern
District of Georgia, and during the time of the events described herein, the Defendant resided
and transacted business in this District.
10. While residing in this District, the Defendant sent and received messages
containing false rumors to the other scheme participants and executed trades designed to profit
from the price manipulation caused by the scheme.
DEFENDANT
11. Patel , age 47, currently resides in Cumming, Georgia.  During the Relevant
Period, Patel was a self-employed day trader.
FACTS
I. Patel and the Other Scheme Participants Create and Disseminate False Rumors.
12. During the Relevant Period, Patel was an active day trader, typically buying and
selling securities within the same day in order to profit from short-term movements in the
securities’ prices.
13. Patel first met Salandra in the 1990s when he contacted Salandra to subscribe to a
daily stock newsletter that Salandra and two others produced at the time.  Patel and Salandra did
not keep in touch after Salandra ended his involvement with the newsletter in the late 1990s.
Sometime in either 2015 or 2016, after Salandra had reached out to Patel in an effort to reconnect

 4
with his previous industry contacts, Patel invited Salandra to come to Atlanta and discuss trading
ideas over dinner.
14. Following that dinner, Patel and Salandra began sharing, over instant messages,
various trading ideas and stock rumors each was seeing on different financial message boards.
Salandra subsequently introduced Patel to Parrino sometime in 2016 and to Ross sometime in
2017, both of whom had worked with Salandra previously at several securities trading firms.
15. Patel discussed trading ideas with Salandra, Parrino and Ross via phone calls,
instant messenger, and encrypted communications.  When Patel learned of rumors about publicly
traded companies, he would share them with his network of contacts, which came to include
Salandra, Parrino, and Ross.  Patel would typically purchase securities in the subject companies
before sending the rumors and would quickly sell the securities after forwarding the rumors.
16. Patel complained to Salandra and Parrino that the rumors they were providing him
were not any good because he was receiving them too late.  Patel told both Salandra and Parrino
that the earlier he received a rumor, the higher the likelihood he could engage in profitable
trading around the rumor and the larger the profits he could make.
17. Beginning sometime in 2016, Parrino and Salandra decided to start creating false
rumors about publicly traded companies to send to Patel.  Parrino and Salandra utilized their
knowledge of the markets to craft believable rumors that would likely cause a desired price
increase in the subject companies’ stock prices.
18. By making up the rumors that they sent to Patel, Parrino and Salandra ensured
that Patel would get the rumors first, which increased the likelihood that he would disseminate
them to his network of financial industry contacts.  This enabled Patel, as well as Parrino and
Salandra, to earn higher profits because they could purchase the companies’ securities before the
securities started increasing in price due to the false rumor.

 5
19. In 2017, after being introduced to Patel, Ross joined the scheme and began to
work with Parrino and Salandra to create false rumors and send them to Patel.
20. By no later than December 2017, Patel knew that the rumors Parrino, Salandra
and Ross were sending to him were false.  Patel told them that what types of rumors he
preferred; what companies he considered to be good subjects of rumors; what industries he
disliked; and what times he preferred to disseminate the rumors.
21. As a result of these conversations with Patel, Salandra, Parrino and Ross focused
on only creating and sending to Patel rumors:  (i) between 9:30 am and noon and rarely on
Fridays; (ii) that were designed to cause companies’ securities prices to rise, rather than fall; and
(iii) that were about companies that had publicly-traded short-term call options, as the prices of
such options were particularly sensitive to rumors.  Practically all of the rumors Salandra,
Parrino and Ross created and sent to Patel were about corporate mergers or acquisitions, large
investments by hedge funds or private equity firms, or other corporate events that would cause
the subject company’s stock and options prices to increase.
22. After Parrino, Ross, and Salandra reviewed and edited the rumors, Ross or
Parrino typically would call Patel to discuss the rumor before sending it to him via instant
message.  Ross or Parrino would then share with the others Patel’s reaction to the rumor.
23. Because Patel knew the rumors were false and were not circulating in the market,
Patel could decide when would be the best time to disseminate the rumors in order to maximize
his profit potential.  Patel often consulted with Melnick to discuss the technical analysis of the
securities of the companies that were the subject of the rumor.  Melnick would review the price
and volume charts of the companies’ securities and advise Patel about the short-term trading
signals he saw.  Patel used that information to decide the optimum time to disseminate the
rumors to his contacts.

 6
24. Patel advised Melnick to purchase securities in the companies that were the
subjects of the rumors and to disclose the names of the companies with the subscribers to his
real-time trading broadcast.  Melnick did this by sharing the price and volume charts for those
companies in his broadcast and informing his subscribers that he was hearing chatter about those
companies.
25. Despite knowing the rumors were false, Patel transmitted them via instant
messenger to his numerous contacts at real-time financial news services, subscription-based
financial chat rooms, and other financial news purveyors with sizable followings.  Within
minutes, if not seconds, the false rumors began appearing as “chatter” – i.e., the subject of
discussion – on several of the financial news services and in the chat rooms and message boards
at which his contacts worked or participated.
26. Patel and the other scheme participants repeated the process of creating and
disseminating false rumors numerous times over the Relevant Period.
II. Patel Trades Profitably around the False Rumors.
27. Before he disseminated the false rumors, Patel purchased securities of the
publicly-traded companies that were the subject of the false rumors.
28. Patel  purchased short-term call options in the subject companies that expired
within a day or two.  He typically purchased the options minutes before disseminating the
rumors.
29. The spread of the false rumors through various news services and in financial chat
rooms, as well as Patel’s and the other scheme participants’ own purchases, caused an uptick in
trading volume and typically resulted in an increase in the subject companies’ securities prices.
Though the percentage increase in the companies’ stock prices often was relatively modest,

 7
typically less than 2%, the percentage increase in the price of the companies’ short-term call
options was frequently significant, often exceeding 25%.
30. Patel  almost always began selling his positions within minutes, if not seconds,
after her pushed the false rumors out to his industry contacts.
31. Patel traded at least 119 times around the false rumors, earning at least $1,125,263
in ill-gotten gains during the Relevant Period.  An Appendix identifying the date and ticker
symbol of the 119 instances, as well as the amount of ill-gotten gains Patel earned from his
trading in each instance, is attached hereto.  Melnick similarly traded around many of the false
rumors and paid kickbacks to Patel in return for providing him with notice of the false rumors
before Patel disseminated the rumors.  Over the period of the scheme, Melnick made payments
to Patel totaling approximately $190,000, a material portion of which amounted to kickbacks
based on Melnick’s profits from the false rumors.
III. Examples of Patel’s Participation in the Market Manipulation Fraud
A. February 2018 Pacific Gas & Electric, Inc. (“PCG”) Rumor
32. On February 1, 2018 at 10:25:02 am, Parrino sent to Salandra and Ross the
following draft rumor falsely stating that Pacific Gas & Electric, ticker symbol PCG, had been
absolved of potential liability for a catastrophic fire that had occurred in California in late 2017:
A spokeswoman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is
stating  that  after  thorough  investigation  it  has  determined  that  the  fires  that
decimated a Santa Rosa neighborhood and killed 21 people was caused by electrical
equipment  owned,  installed,  and  maintained  by  a  third  party  exonerating  Pacific
Gas and electric Co. (PCG) from all liability.
33. Ross advised that, as there was a large seller of PCG securities presently in the
market that could potentially blunt the manipulative impact of their rumor, they should wait a bit
before sending it to Patel.  Ross told the others that he would let them know when to proceed.
Over an hour later, at 11:37:09 am, Ross advised Parrino and Salandra that they should send the

 8
rumor to Patel.    Thirty seconds later, Parrino messaged Patel to “pik [sic] up,” and, after they
spoke, Parrino sent the rumor to Patel at 11:40:57 am.
34. Mere seconds after receiving the rumor – specifically, between 11:41:16 am and
11:41:59 am – Patel purchased a total of 382 PCG call options ( 182 options with an exercise
price of $42.50, and 200 options with an exercise price of $43.00), all with an expiration date of
the following day, February 2, 2018, for a total cost of $5,640.
35. During the minute of Patel’s purchases, PCG stock traded between $42.27 and
$42.32, less than the exercise prices of the options he had purchased.
36. At 11:48:58 am, nearly eight minutes after he received the rumor, Patel slightly
revised and disseminated the rumor via instant messenger to his financial headline news services
and chatroom contacts:
PCG Hearing chatter the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is
stating  that  after  a  thorough  investigation  it  has  determined  that  the  fires  that
decimated a Santa Rosa neighborhood and killed 21 people was caused by electrical
equipment  owned,  installed,  and  maintained  by  a  third  party  exonerating  Pacific
Gas & Electric (PCG) from all liability.  Unconfirmed
37. The false rumor was immediately repeated by the financial websites and chat
rooms and promptly caused an increase in the trading volume and price of PCG’s stock and
options.  Between 11:48 am and 11:53 am, PCG stock increased in price from $42.29 to $45.46,
and the volume of shares traded increased from just over 10,000 shares in the minute preceding
Patel’s disseminating the rumor to over 400,000 shares in the minute following.
38. The price increase was so significant that trading in PCG securities was
temporarily halted at 11:53 am and spokespersons for PCG and the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection each subsequently issued respective statements that the rumor was
false.

 9
39. The following charts illustrate the increase in price and trading volume of PCG
stock and the PCG call options purchased by Patel, before and after he disseminated the rumor at
11:48:58 am.
Volume and Price of PCG Stock Increase

Volume and Price of PCG Call Options Increase

 -
 200,000
 400,000
 600,000
 800,000
 1,000,000
 1,200,000
$40
$41
$42
$43
$44
$45
$46
$47
 11:35 11:36 11:37 11:38 11:39 11:40 11:41 11:42 11:43 11:44 11:45 11:46 11:47 11:48 11:49 11:50 11:51 11:52 11:53 11:54 11:55 11:56 11:57 11:58 11:59 12:00 12:01 12:02 12:03 12:04 12:05
PCG Stock
VolumePrice
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
$5.00
PCG - Feb 2 $42.5 Calls
Scheme Participants - BuyingScheme Participants - SellingPublicPrice

 10

40. Patel sold all of his PCG call options between 11:49:36 am and 11:49:54 am, less
than one minute after pushing the false rumor, resulting in unlawful profits of $12,420.
B. July 2018 Yelp, Inc. Rumor
41. On the morning of July 25, 2018, Parrino sent an instant message to Ross
instructing him to work on a rumor for Yelp, Inc. (“YELP”).  Ross suggested “maybe IAC
[Interactive Corp.] could buy yelp,” noting that IAC had bought Angie’s List, and a t 9:28:58 am,
Ross sent Parrino the following draft rumor:  “Hearing that Iac/Interactive Corp has made an
offer to acquire Yelp Inc. (YELP) for $50 a share.”
42. Parrino told Ross he liked the draft rumor and suggested they watch Yelp’s stock
price for a bit.  At the time, Yelp stock was trading at approximately $38 per share.  Parrino,
Ross, and Salandra continued to discuss the timing for sending out the Yelp rumor, but
ultimately decided to hold off sending the rumor to Patel because there was a large seller of
YELP shares in the market that could potentially impact the manipulative impact of their rumor.
43. The next morning, July 26, 2018, at 8:55:31 am, Ross resent Parrino and Salandra
the Yelp rumor, to which Salandra responded “yelp looks good.”  At 10:41:23 am, Ross
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
PCG - Feb 2 $43 Calls
Scheme Participants - BuyingScheme Participants - SellingPublicPrice

 11
messaged Patel asking if he was available for a call.  When Patel asked “what’s up,” Ross
responded “yelp” and then called Patel to tell him the Yelp rumor they had drafted.  While
speaking with Ross, Patel purchased 300 YELP calls for a total cost of $13,500.
44. Ross reported back to Parrino and Salandra that Patel “likes it.”  When Ross
failed to send the rumor to Patel immediately, Patel messaged “???” and “ur gonan fek shit up”
[sic].  At 10:49:14 am, Ross messaged the Yelp rumor to Patel and quickly informed Parrino and
Salandra that “he is doing it.”
45. Despite knowing it was false, Patel disseminated the rumor “YELP Hearing that
Iac/Interactive Corp has made an offer to acquire Yelp Inc. (YELP) for $50 a share,
unconfirmed” to his financial headline news services and chatroom contacts at 10:49:53 am.
46. Within one minute of Patel’s sending the Yelp rumor to his contacts, several
financial new websites and chat rooms repeated the false rumor, which promptly caused an
increase in the trading volume and price of Yelp’s stock and options.  Between 10:48 am and
11:01 am, YELP stock increased in price from $39.12 to $40.23 while the price of the YELP
calls Patel purchased increased in price from $0.52 to $1.40.  The volume of YELP shares traded
increased from 2,000 shares in the minute preceding Patel’s disseminating the rumor to nearly
100,000 shares in the minute following.
47. The following charts illustrate the increase in the price and trading volume of
YELP stock and the YELP call options purchased by Patel, before and after he disseminated the
rumor at 10:49:53 am.

 12
Volume and Price of Yelp Stock Increase

Volume and Price of Yelp Call Options Increase

48. Between 10:50:07 am and 11:00:50 am, Patel sold the 300 Yelp options he had
purchased, resulting in unlawful profits of $10,181.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
$38.50
$38.70
$38.90
$39.10
$39.30
$39.50
$39.70
$39.90
$40.10
$40.30
$40.50
 10:40 10:41 10:42 10:43 10:44 10:45 10:46 10:47 10:48 10:49 10:50 10:51 10:52 10:53 10:54 10:55 10:56 10:57 10:58 10:59 11:00 11:01 11:02 11:03 11:04 11:05
YELP Stock
VolumePrice
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
$1.60
Axis Title
YELP - July 27 $39 Calls
Scheme Participants - BuyingScheme Participants - SellingPublicPrice

 13
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
49. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through
48, as though fully set forth herein.
50. By virtue of the foregoing, Patel , directly or indirectly, singly or in concert with
others, in the offer or sale of any security, with scienter, used the means or instruments of
transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to:  (a) employ any
device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (b) obtain money or property by means of any untrue
statement of a material fact or any omission of a material fact necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and
(c) engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operated or would operate as
a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.
51. By virtue of the foregoing, Patel , directly or indirectly, violated and, unless
restrained and enjoined, will again violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 77q(a).

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a), (b), and (c) Thereunder

52. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through
48, as though fully set forth herein.
53. By virtue of the foregoing, Patel, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert with
others, in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, with scienter, used the means or
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of a facility of a national securities
exchange to:  (1) employ devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; (2) make untrue statements of
a material fact or to omit to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made,

 14
in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (3) engage in
acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon
others.
54. By virtue of the foregoing, Patel , directly or indirectly, violated and, unless
restrained and enjoined, will again violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5   thereunder,17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court enter a
Judgment:
I.
Finding that Patel violated the provisions of the federal securities laws as alleged herein;
II.
Permanently restraining and enjoining Patel  and his agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with him who receive actual notice of
the injunction by personal service or otherwise from, directly or indirectly, engaging in conduct
in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act,  15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), and Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5;
III.
Ordering Patel to pay disgorgement of $1,125,263, along with prejudgment interest,
pursuant to Sections 21(d)(3), (5), and (7) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(7);
IV.
Ordering Patel to pay a civil monetary penalty pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3), in an
amount to be determined by the Court; and

 15
V.
Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
 The Commission demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable.

Dated:  Atlanta, Georgia
 February 16, 2023

        /  s/ Damon W. Taaffe___________________
      Damon W. Taaffe
Trial Counsel
Division of Enforcement
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549
Desk: (202) 551-7420
[email protected]

 16
APPENDIX

PATEL’S PROFITS FROM TRADING
AROUND THE DISSEMINATION OF FALSE RUMORS

Rumor/Trade Date Ticker Symbol Patel's Trading Profits
1 12/13/2017 XLNX
$3,377
2 12/20/2017 CBS
$11,761
3 12/21/2017 ETFC
$6,800
4 1/3/2018 HUM
$15,375
5 1/8/2018 BBBY
$960
6 1/9/2018 CI
$5,490
7 1/12/2018 YELP
$9,075
8 1/18/2018 EA
$1,933
9 1/18/2018 IP
$8,214
10 1/19/2018 ULTA
$4,103
11 1/22/2018 AMD
$3,675
12 1/23/2018 PEP
$2,580
13 1/25/2018 JD
$1,574
14 1/29/2018 MOS
$3,281
15 2/1/2018 PCG
$12,420
16 2/13/2018 UPS
$24,735
17 2/14/2018 TIF
$23,568
18 2/15/2018 TMUS
$10,206
19 2/16/2018 WYNN
$53,318
20 2/20/2018 CREE
$20,591
21 2/22/2018 LLY
$4,837
22 3/1/2018 TXT
$18,453
23 3/6/2018 ON
$2,188
24 3/7/2018 HFC
$6,609
25 3/8/2018 DIS
$33,998
26 3/15/2018 AMAT
$5,051
27 3/15/2018 GLW
$1,860
28 3/23/2018 HES

29 3/26/2018 TAP
$2,934
30 4/5/2018 SYF
$10,800
31 4/10/2018 WMB
$5,522
32 4/11/2018 LNG
$2,668
33 4/12/2018 HOG
$13,927
34 4/12/2018 LUV
$3,150
35 4/13/2018 HAS
$1,579
36 4/17/2018 EAT
$13,645
37 4/18/2018 BEN
$6,300
38 4/18/2018 FDX
$2,788

 17
39 4/19/2018 EA
$14,727
40 4/20/2018 WDC
$3,250
41 4/20/2018 W
$3,988
42 4/24/2018 EOG
$1,645
43 4/24/2018 DISH

44 4/25/2018 DKS
$50
45 5/1/2018 AZN
$7,260
46 5/2/2018 CHKP
$1,050
47 5/4/2018 ALXN

48 5/15/2018 FSLR
$4,872
49 5/16/2018 SFM
$6,325
50 5/17/2018 STX
$897
51 5/24/2018 IP
$12,078
52 5/24/2018 AKAM
$33
53 5/30/2018 CL
$1,936
54 5/31/2018 AAL
$13,670
55 6/5/2018 ETN
$11,977
56 6/20/2018 SFIX
$24,910
57 6/20/2018 REGN
$6,100
58 6/21/2018 WYNN
$1,461
59 7/11/2018 MO
$8,592
60 7/12/2018 NKE
$10,362
61 7/20/2018 CELG
$8,111
62 7/25/2018 RHT
$5,558
63 7/26/2018 PFE

64 7/26/2018 YELP
$10,181
65 7/31/2018 CAH
$5,998
66 8/3/2018 IBM
$1,200
67 8/3/2018 OSTK
$6,610
68 8/8/2018 WYNN
$34,768
69 8/9/2018 GM

70 8/15/2018 IBM
$5,967
71 8/22/2018 EA
$5,930
72 8/22/2018 DE
$834
73 9/5/2018 LNC
$21,917
74 9/21/2018 AGN
$5,523
75 9/26/2018 IP
$9,275
76 9/27/2018 WDC
$151
77 11/9/2018 KBH
$12,544
78 11/16/2018 V
$6,086
79 11/27/2018 ETFC

80 12/20/2018 ATVI
$12,291
81 1/15/2019 SFIX
$15,143
82 1/17/2019 SKX
$8,900

 18
83 2/6/2019 KMB
$20,524
84 2/28/2019 SYF

85 3/13/2019 HBI
$2,915
86 3/28/2019 DAL
$8,474
87 4/10/2019 URBN
$4,845
88 5/16/2019 FDX
$19,177
89 6/11/2019 BB
$32,168
90 8/1/2019 XLNX
$7,626
91 8/15/2019 K
$24,196
92 8/27/2019 YELP
$11,213
93 9/5/2019 KSS
$17,815
94 9/11/2019 SPLK
$18,730
95 9/19/2019 SWKS
$202
96 9/20/2019 TPR
$2,020
97 9/26/2019 WYNN
$10,248
98 10/3/2019 ROKU
$25,774
99 10/10/2019 GILD
$23,201
100 10/16/2019 IP
$8,962
101 10/17/2019 ULTA
$22,891
102 10/24/2019 ATVI
$7,997
103 10/25/2019 UPS
$34,131
104 10/30/2019 BUD
$994
105 11/5/2019 CL
$5,276
106 11/6/2019 YUM
$11,066
107 11/8/2019 AAL
$7,424
108 11/12/2019 TWLO
$8,637
109 11/21/2019 AXP
$14,614
110 12/9/2019 HLF
$3,883
111 12/10/2019 IBM
$3,932
112 12/10/2019 HOG
$9,259
113 12/18/2019 CREE
$8,388
114 12/19/2019 NTAP

115 1/8/2020 FDX
$6,263
116 1/9/2020 PINS
$10,503
117 1/10/2020 WYNN
$24,842
118 1/14/2020 COF
$27,208
119 1/14/2020 UBER
$8,350

  Total
$1,125,263

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

)  
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,  ) 

 ) 
Plaintiff,    ) Civil Action No. 

 ) 
v.  ) COMPLAINT 

 ) ECF Case 
MILAN V. PATEL       ) 

 ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 
Defendant.    ) 

  ) 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) files this Complaint 

against Defendant Milan V. Patel (“Patel” or “Defendant”) and alleges as follows: 

SUMMARY 

1. Between at least December 2017 and January 2020 (the “Relevant Period”), Patel

participated in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the market for securities of publicly-traded 

companies by disseminating false rumors designed to cause the price of the target companies’ 

stock and call options to rise temporarily. 

2. Patel received the false rumors by telephone or instant messages from Charles

Parrino (“Parrino”), Barton Ross (“Ross”) or Anthony Salandra (“Salandra”).  Throughout the 

scheme, each of them either drafted, edited, or reviewed the rumors before one of them sent the 

rumors to Patel.   

3. Upon receiving the rumors, which he knew to be false, Patel told Mark Melnick

(“Melnick”), formerly the host of a daily subscription based real-time trading webcast, the names 

of the companies that were the subject of the rumors and directed Melnick to purchase securities 

2:23-CV-0026-RWS

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 1 of 18



 

 2 

in those companies.  Melnick then pulled up the companies’ technical charts on his screen and 

informed his webcast subscribers that he was hearing “chatter” about those companies. 

4. Patel further disseminated the false rumors to his contacts at other real-time 

financial news services, financial chat rooms, and certain other financial news purveyors via 

instant messages, intending to profit from the price movements the rumors were designed to 

cause.  Patel’s contacts then immediately disseminated the rumors further through their news 

services and in chat rooms and message boards.  As a result, the prices of the companies’ 

securities were artificially inflated for a brief period until they were corrected by the market.    

5. During the Relevant Period, Patel executed trades designed to profit from the 

price manipulation caused by his dissemination of these false rumors at least 119 times, earning 

at least $1,125,263 in ill-gotten gains.   

6. By virtue of the conduct alleged herein, Patel violated, and unless restrained and 

enjoined will violate again, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), 15 

U.S.C. § 77q(a); Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 

U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. 

7. The Commission brings this action pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d) and 78u-1.  

The Commission seeks a judgment:  (1) permanently enjoining Patel from engaging in the 

transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint; and (2) ordering 

Patel to pay disgorgement of $1,125,263, plus prejudgment interest, and civil money penalties 

pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), and Section 21(d)(3), (5), and 

(7) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3), (5), and (7).  The Commission also seeks any 

other relief the Court may deem appropriate pursuant to Section 21(d)(5) of the Exchange Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5). 

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 2 of 18



 

 3 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 20 and 22 of the 

Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77t and 77v, and Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 27 of the Exchange Act, 

15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), 78u-l, and 78aa. 

9. Venue lies in this District pursuant to Section 22 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 77v, and Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa.  Certain of the acts, practices, 

transactions, and courses of business constituting the violations occurred within the Northern 

District of Georgia, and during the time of the events described herein, the Defendant resided 

and transacted business in this District.   

10. While residing in this District, the Defendant sent and received messages 

containing false rumors to the other scheme participants and executed trades designed to profit 

from the price manipulation caused by the scheme.      

DEFENDANT 

11. Patel, age 47, currently resides in Cumming, Georgia.  During the Relevant 

Period, Patel was a self-employed day trader.  

FACTS 

I. Patel and the Other Scheme Participants Create and Disseminate False Rumors. 

12. During the Relevant Period, Patel was an active day trader, typically buying and 

selling securities within the same day in order to profit from short-term movements in the 

securities’ prices.   

13. Patel first met Salandra in the 1990s when he contacted Salandra to subscribe to a 

daily stock newsletter that Salandra and two others produced at the time.  Patel and Salandra did 

not keep in touch after Salandra ended his involvement with the newsletter in the late 1990s.  

Sometime in either 2015 or 2016, after Salandra had reached out to Patel in an effort to reconnect 

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 3 of 18



 

 4 

with his previous industry contacts, Patel invited Salandra to come to Atlanta and discuss trading 

ideas over dinner.   

14. Following that dinner, Patel and Salandra began sharing, over instant messages, 

various trading ideas and stock rumors each was seeing on different financial message boards.  

Salandra subsequently introduced Patel to Parrino sometime in 2016 and to Ross sometime in 

2017, both of whom had worked with Salandra previously at several securities trading firms.     

15. Patel discussed trading ideas with Salandra, Parrino and Ross via phone calls, 

instant messenger, and encrypted communications.  When Patel learned of rumors about publicly 

traded companies, he would share them with his network of contacts, which came to include 

Salandra, Parrino, and Ross.  Patel would typically purchase securities in the subject companies 

before sending the rumors and would quickly sell the securities after forwarding the rumors.       

16. Patel complained to Salandra and Parrino that the rumors they were providing him 

were not any good because he was receiving them too late.  Patel told both Salandra and Parrino 

that the earlier he received a rumor, the higher the likelihood he could engage in profitable 

trading around the rumor and the larger the profits he could make.   

17. Beginning sometime in 2016, Parrino and Salandra decided to start creating false 

rumors about publicly traded companies to send to Patel.  Parrino and Salandra utilized their 

knowledge of the markets to craft believable rumors that would likely cause a desired price 

increase in the subject companies’ stock prices.   

18. By making up the rumors that they sent to Patel, Parrino and Salandra ensured 

that Patel would get the rumors first, which increased the likelihood that he would disseminate 

them to his network of financial industry contacts.  This enabled Patel, as well as Parrino and 

Salandra, to earn higher profits because they could purchase the companies’ securities before the 

securities started increasing in price due to the false rumor.   

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 4 of 18



 

 5 

19. In 2017, after being introduced to Patel, Ross joined the scheme and began to 

work with Parrino and Salandra to create false rumors and send them to Patel.       

20. By no later than December 2017, Patel knew that the rumors Parrino, Salandra 

and Ross were sending to him were false.  Patel told them that what types of rumors he 

preferred; what companies he considered to be good subjects of rumors; what industries he 

disliked; and what times he preferred to disseminate the rumors.  

21. As a result of these conversations with Patel, Salandra, Parrino and Ross focused 

on only creating and sending to Patel rumors:  (i) between 9:30 am and noon and rarely on 

Fridays; (ii) that were designed to cause companies’ securities prices to rise, rather than fall; and 

(iii) that were about companies that had publicly-traded short-term call options, as the prices of 

such options were particularly sensitive to rumors.  Practically all of the rumors Salandra, 

Parrino and Ross created and sent to Patel were about corporate mergers or acquisitions, large 

investments by hedge funds or private equity firms, or other corporate events that would cause 

the subject company’s stock and options prices to increase.   

22. After Parrino, Ross, and Salandra reviewed and edited the rumors, Ross or 

Parrino typically would call Patel to discuss the rumor before sending it to him via instant 

message.  Ross or Parrino would then share with the others Patel’s reaction to the rumor.   

23. Because Patel knew the rumors were false and were not circulating in the market, 

Patel could decide when would be the best time to disseminate the rumors in order to maximize 

his profit potential.  Patel often consulted with Melnick to discuss the technical analysis of the 

securities of the companies that were the subject of the rumor.  Melnick would review the price 

and volume charts of the companies’ securities and advise Patel about the short-term trading 

signals he saw.  Patel used that information to decide the optimum time to disseminate the 

rumors to his contacts.   

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 5 of 18



 

 6 

24. Patel advised Melnick to purchase securities in the companies that were the 

subjects of the rumors and to disclose the names of the companies with the subscribers to his 

real-time trading broadcast.  Melnick did this by sharing the price and volume charts for those 

companies in his broadcast and informing his subscribers that he was hearing chatter about those 

companies.   

25. Despite knowing the rumors were false, Patel transmitted them via instant 

messenger to his numerous contacts at real-time financial news services, subscription-based 

financial chat rooms, and other financial news purveyors with sizable followings.  Within 

minutes, if not seconds, the false rumors began appearing as “chatter” – i.e., the subject of 

discussion – on several of the financial news services and in the chat rooms and message boards 

at which his contacts worked or participated.   

26. Patel and the other scheme participants repeated the process of creating and 

disseminating false rumors numerous times over the Relevant Period. 

II. Patel Trades Profitably around the False Rumors. 

27. Before he disseminated the false rumors, Patel purchased securities of the 

publicly-traded companies that were the subject of the false rumors.   

28. Patel purchased short-term call options in the subject companies that expired 

within a day or two.  He typically purchased the options minutes before disseminating the 

rumors.         

29. The spread of the false rumors through various news services and in financial chat 

rooms, as well as Patel’s and the other scheme participants’ own purchases, caused an uptick in 

trading volume and typically resulted in an increase in the subject companies’ securities prices.  

Though the percentage increase in the companies’ stock prices often was relatively modest, 

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 6 of 18



 

 7 

typically less than 2%, the percentage increase in the price of the companies’ short-term call 

options was frequently significant, often exceeding 25%. 

30. Patel almost always began selling his positions within minutes, if not seconds, 

after her pushed the false rumors out to his industry contacts.     

31. Patel traded at least 119 times around the false rumors, earning at least $1,125,263 

in ill-gotten gains during the Relevant Period.  An Appendix identifying the date and ticker 

symbol of the 119 instances, as well as the amount of ill-gotten gains Patel earned from his 

trading in each instance, is attached hereto.  Melnick similarly traded around many of the false 

rumors and paid kickbacks to Patel in return for providing him with notice of the false rumors 

before Patel disseminated the rumors.  Over the period of the scheme, Melnick made payments 

to Patel totaling approximately $190,000, a material portion of which amounted to kickbacks 

based on Melnick’s profits from the false rumors. 

III. Examples of Patel’s Participation in the Market Manipulation Fraud 

A. February 2018 Pacific Gas & Electric, Inc. (“PCG”) Rumor 

32. On February 1, 2018 at 10:25:02 am, Parrino sent to Salandra and Ross the 

following draft rumor falsely stating that Pacific Gas & Electric, ticker symbol PCG, had been 

absolved of potential liability for a catastrophic fire that had occurred in California in late 2017: 

A spokeswoman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is 
stating that after thorough investigation it has determined that the fires that 
decimated a Santa Rosa neighborhood and killed 21 people was caused by electrical 
equipment owned, installed, and maintained by a third party exonerating Pacific 
Gas and electric Co. (PCG) from all liability.   

33. Ross advised that, as there was a large seller of PCG securities presently in the 

market that could potentially blunt the manipulative impact of their rumor, they should wait a bit 

before sending it to Patel.  Ross told the others that he would let them know when to proceed.  

Over an hour later, at 11:37:09 am, Ross advised Parrino and Salandra that they should send the 

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 7 of 18



 

 8 

rumor to Patel.    Thirty seconds later, Parrino messaged Patel to “pik [sic] up,” and, after they 

spoke, Parrino sent the rumor to Patel at 11:40:57 am.     

34. Mere seconds after receiving the rumor – specifically, between 11:41:16 am and 

11:41:59 am – Patel purchased a total of 382 PCG call options (182 options with an exercise 

price of $42.50, and 200 options with an exercise price of $43.00), all with an expiration date of 

the following day, February 2, 2018, for a total cost of $5,640.   

35. During the minute of Patel’s purchases, PCG stock traded between $42.27 and 

$42.32, less than the exercise prices of the options he had purchased.     

36. At 11:48:58 am, nearly eight minutes after he received the rumor, Patel slightly 

revised and disseminated the rumor via instant messenger to his financial headline news services 

and chatroom contacts: 

PCG Hearing chatter the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is 
stating that after a thorough investigation it has determined that the fires that 
decimated a Santa Rosa neighborhood and killed 21 people was caused by electrical 
equipment owned, installed, and maintained by a third party exonerating Pacific 
Gas & Electric (PCG) from all liability.  Unconfirmed 

37. The false rumor was immediately repeated by the financial websites and chat 

rooms and promptly caused an increase in the trading volume and price of PCG’s stock and 

options.  Between 11:48 am and 11:53 am, PCG stock increased in price from $42.29 to $45.46, 

and the volume of shares traded increased from just over 10,000 shares in the minute preceding 

Patel’s disseminating the rumor to over 400,000 shares in the minute following.   

38. The price increase was so significant that trading in PCG securities was 

temporarily halted at 11:53 am and spokespersons for PCG and the California Department of 

Forestry and Fire Protection each subsequently issued respective statements that the rumor was 

false.   

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 8 of 18



 

 9 

39. The following charts illustrate the increase in price and trading volume of PCG 

stock and the PCG call options purchased by Patel, before and after he disseminated the rumor at 

11:48:58 am. 

Volume and Price of PCG Stock Increase 

 

Volume and Price of PCG Call Options Increase

 

 -

 200,000

 400,000

 600,000

 800,000

 1,000,000

 1,200,000

$40

$41

$42

$43

$44

$45

$46

$47

 1
1:

35
 1

1:
36

 1
1:

37
 1

1:
38

 1
1:

39
 1

1:
40

 1
1:

41
 1

1:
42

 1
1:

43
 1

1:
44

 1
1:

45
 1

1:
46

 1
1:

47
 1

1:
48

 1
1:

49
 1

1:
50

 1
1:

51
 1

1:
52

 1
1:

53
 1

1:
54

 1
1:

55
 1

1:
56

 1
1:

57
 1

1:
58

 1
1:

59
 1

2:
00

 1
2:

01
 1

2:
02

 1
2:

03
 1

2:
04

 1
2:

05

PCG Stock

Volume Price

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
$5.00

PCG - Feb 2 $42.5 Calls

Scheme Participants - Buying Scheme Participants - Selling Public Price

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 9 of 18



 

 10 

 
 
40. Patel sold all of his PCG call options between 11:49:36 am and 11:49:54 am, less 

than one minute after pushing the false rumor, resulting in unlawful profits of $12,420. 

B. July 2018 Yelp, Inc. Rumor 

41. On the morning of July 25, 2018, Parrino sent an instant message to Ross 

instructing him to work on a rumor for Yelp, Inc. (“YELP”).  Ross suggested “maybe IAC 

[Interactive Corp.] could buy yelp,” noting that IAC had bought Angie’s List, and at 9:28:58 am, 

Ross sent Parrino the following draft rumor:  “Hearing that Iac/Interactive Corp has made an 

offer to acquire Yelp Inc. (YELP) for $50 a share.”   

42. Parrino told Ross he liked the draft rumor and suggested they watch Yelp’s stock 

price for a bit.  At the time, Yelp stock was trading at approximately $38 per share.  Parrino, 

Ross, and Salandra continued to discuss the timing for sending out the Yelp rumor, but 

ultimately decided to hold off sending the rumor to Patel because there was a large seller of 

YELP shares in the market that could potentially impact the manipulative impact of their rumor.  

43. The next morning, July 26, 2018, at 8:55:31 am, Ross resent Parrino and Salandra 

the Yelp rumor, to which Salandra responded “yelp looks good.”  At 10:41:23 am, Ross 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

PCG - Feb 2 $43 Calls

Scheme Participants - Buying Scheme Participants - Selling Public Price

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 10 of 18



 

 11 

messaged Patel asking if he was available for a call.  When Patel asked “what’s up,” Ross 

responded “yelp” and then called Patel to tell him the Yelp rumor they had drafted.  While 

speaking with Ross, Patel purchased 300 YELP calls for a total cost of $13,500. 

44. Ross reported back to Parrino and Salandra that Patel “likes it.”  When Ross 

failed to send the rumor to Patel immediately, Patel messaged “???” and “ur gonan fek shit up” 

[sic].  At 10:49:14 am, Ross messaged the Yelp rumor to Patel and quickly informed Parrino and 

Salandra that “he is doing it.”   

45. Despite knowing it was false, Patel disseminated the rumor “YELP Hearing that 

Iac/Interactive Corp has made an offer to acquire Yelp Inc. (YELP) for $50 a share, 

unconfirmed” to his financial headline news services and chatroom contacts at 10:49:53 am.   

46. Within one minute of Patel’s sending the Yelp rumor to his contacts, several 

financial new websites and chat rooms repeated the false rumor, which promptly caused an 

increase in the trading volume and price of Yelp’s stock and options.  Between 10:48 am and 

11:01 am, YELP stock increased in price from $39.12 to $40.23 while the price of the YELP 

calls Patel purchased increased in price from $0.52 to $1.40.  The volume of YELP shares traded 

increased from 2,000 shares in the minute preceding Patel’s disseminating the rumor to nearly 

100,000 shares in the minute following.  

47. The following charts illustrate the increase in the price and trading volume of 

YELP stock and the YELP call options purchased by Patel, before and after he disseminated the 

rumor at 10:49:53 am. 

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 11 of 18



 

 12 

Volume and Price of Yelp Stock Increase 

 

Volume and Price of Yelp Call Options Increase 

 

48. Between 10:50:07 am and 11:00:50 am, Patel sold the 300 Yelp options he had 

purchased, resulting in unlawful profits of $10,181.   

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

$38.50
$38.70
$38.90
$39.10
$39.30
$39.50
$39.70
$39.90
$40.10
$40.30
$40.50

 1
0:

40

 1
0:

41

 1
0:

42

 1
0:

43

 1
0:

44

 1
0:

45

 1
0:

46

 1
0:

47

 1
0:

48

 1
0:

49

 1
0:

50

 1
0:

51

 1
0:

52

 1
0:

53

 1
0:

54

 1
0:

55

 1
0:

56

 1
0:

57

 1
0:

58

 1
0:

59

 1
1:

00

 1
1:

01

 1
1:

02

 1
1:

03

 1
1:

04

 1
1:

05

YELP Stock

Volume Price

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

$1.60

Axis Title

YELP - July 27 $39 Calls

Scheme Participants - Buying Scheme Participants - Selling Public Price

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 12 of 18



 

 13 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
 

Violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act 

49. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 

48, as though fully set forth herein. 

50. By virtue of the foregoing, Patel, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert with 

others, in the offer or sale of any security, with scienter, used the means or instruments of 

transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to:  (a) employ any 

device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (b) obtain money or property by means of any untrue 

statement of a material fact or any omission of a material fact necessary in order to make the 

statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and 

(c) engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operated or would operate as 

a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser. 

51. By virtue of the foregoing, Patel, directly or indirectly, violated and, unless 

restrained and enjoined, will again violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 77q(a). 

 
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a), (b), and (c) Thereunder 
 

52. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 

48, as though fully set forth herein. 

53. By virtue of the foregoing, Patel, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert with 

others, in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, with scienter, used the means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of a facility of a national securities 

exchange to:  (1) employ devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; (2) make untrue statements of 

a material fact or to omit to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, 

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 13 of 18



 

 14 

in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (3) engage in 

acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon 

others.  

54. By virtue of the foregoing, Patel, directly or indirectly, violated and, unless 

restrained and enjoined, will again violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court enter a  

Judgment: 

I.  

Finding that Patel violated the provisions of the federal securities laws as alleged herein; 

II.  

Permanently restraining and enjoining Patel and his agents, servants, employees, and 

attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with him who receive actual notice of 

the injunction by personal service or otherwise from, directly or indirectly, engaging in conduct 

in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), and Section 10(b) of the 

Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5; 

III.  

Ordering Patel to pay disgorgement of $1,125,263, along with prejudgment interest, 

pursuant to Sections 21(d)(3), (5), and (7) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(7);  

IV.  

Ordering Patel to pay a civil monetary penalty pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3), in an 

amount to be determined by the Court; and 

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 14 of 18



 

 15 

V.  

Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

 The Commission demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable. 

 
 
Dated:  Atlanta, Georgia 
 February 16, 2023 
          
        /s/ Damon W. Taaffe___________________ 
      Damon W. Taaffe 

Trial Counsel 
Division of Enforcement 
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 
100 F Street, NE 
Washington, DC 20549 
Desk: (202) 551-7420 
[email protected] 

 
  

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 15 of 18



 

 16 

APPENDIX 
 

PATEL’S PROFITS FROM TRADING  
AROUND THE DISSEMINATION OF FALSE RUMORS 

 

  Rumor/Trade Date Ticker Symbol Patel's Trading Profits 
1 12/13/2017 XLNX $3,377 
2 12/20/2017 CBS $11,761 
3 12/21/2017 ETFC $6,800 
4 1/3/2018 HUM $15,375 
5 1/8/2018 BBBY $960 
6 1/9/2018 CI $5,490 
7 1/12/2018 YELP $9,075 
8 1/18/2018 EA $1,933 
9 1/18/2018 IP $8,214 
10 1/19/2018 ULTA $4,103 
11 1/22/2018 AMD $3,675 
12 1/23/2018 PEP $2,580 
13 1/25/2018 JD $1,574 
14 1/29/2018 MOS $3,281 
15 2/1/2018 PCG $12,420 
16 2/13/2018 UPS $24,735 
17 2/14/2018 TIF $23,568 
18 2/15/2018 TMUS $10,206 
19 2/16/2018 WYNN $53,318 
20 2/20/2018 CREE $20,591 
21 2/22/2018 LLY $4,837 
22 3/1/2018 TXT $18,453 
23 3/6/2018 ON $2,188 
24 3/7/2018 HFC $6,609 
25 3/8/2018 DIS $33,998 
26 3/15/2018 AMAT $5,051 
27 3/15/2018 GLW $1,860 
28 3/23/2018 HES   
29 3/26/2018 TAP $2,934 
30 4/5/2018 SYF $10,800 
31 4/10/2018 WMB $5,522 
32 4/11/2018 LNG $2,668 
33 4/12/2018 HOG $13,927 
34 4/12/2018 LUV $3,150 
35 4/13/2018 HAS $1,579 
36 4/17/2018 EAT $13,645 
37 4/18/2018 BEN $6,300 
38 4/18/2018 FDX $2,788 

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 16 of 18



 

 17 

39 4/19/2018 EA $14,727 
40 4/20/2018 WDC $3,250 
41 4/20/2018 W $3,988 
42 4/24/2018 EOG $1,645 
43 4/24/2018 DISH   
44 4/25/2018 DKS $50 
45 5/1/2018 AZN $7,260 
46 5/2/2018 CHKP $1,050 
47 5/4/2018 ALXN   
48 5/15/2018 FSLR $4,872 
49 5/16/2018 SFM $6,325 
50 5/17/2018 STX $897 
51 5/24/2018 IP $12,078 
52 5/24/2018 AKAM $33 
53 5/30/2018 CL $1,936 
54 5/31/2018 AAL $13,670 
55 6/5/2018 ETN $11,977 
56 6/20/2018 SFIX $24,910 
57 6/20/2018 REGN $6,100 
58 6/21/2018 WYNN $1,461 
59 7/11/2018 MO $8,592 
60 7/12/2018 NKE $10,362 
61 7/20/2018 CELG $8,111 
62 7/25/2018 RHT $5,558 
63 7/26/2018 PFE   
64 7/26/2018 YELP $10,181 
65 7/31/2018 CAH $5,998 
66 8/3/2018 IBM $1,200 
67 8/3/2018 OSTK $6,610 
68 8/8/2018 WYNN $34,768 
69 8/9/2018 GM   
70 8/15/2018 IBM $5,967 
71 8/22/2018 EA $5,930 
72 8/22/2018 DE $834 
73 9/5/2018 LNC $21,917 
74 9/21/2018 AGN $5,523 
75 9/26/2018 IP $9,275 
76 9/27/2018 WDC $151 
77 11/9/2018 KBH $12,544 
78 11/16/2018 V $6,086 
79 11/27/2018 ETFC   
80 12/20/2018 ATVI $12,291 
81 1/15/2019 SFIX $15,143 
82 1/17/2019 SKX $8,900 

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 17 of 18



 

 18 

83 2/6/2019 KMB $20,524 
84 2/28/2019 SYF   
85 3/13/2019 HBI $2,915 
86 3/28/2019 DAL $8,474 
87 4/10/2019 URBN $4,845 
88 5/16/2019 FDX $19,177 
89 6/11/2019 BB $32,168 
90 8/1/2019 XLNX $7,626 
91 8/15/2019 K $24,196 
92 8/27/2019 YELP $11,213 
93 9/5/2019 KSS $17,815 
94 9/11/2019 SPLK $18,730 
95 9/19/2019 SWKS $202 
96 9/20/2019 TPR $2,020 
97 9/26/2019 WYNN $10,248 
98 10/3/2019 ROKU $25,774 
99 10/10/2019 GILD $23,201 
100 10/16/2019 IP $8,962 
101 10/17/2019 ULTA $22,891 
102 10/24/2019 ATVI $7,997 
103 10/25/2019 UPS $34,131 
104 10/30/2019 BUD $994 
105 11/5/2019 CL $5,276 
106 11/6/2019 YUM $11,066 
107 11/8/2019 AAL $7,424 
108 11/12/2019 TWLO $8,637 
109 11/21/2019 AXP $14,614 
110 12/9/2019 HLF $3,883 
111 12/10/2019 IBM $3,932 
112 12/10/2019 HOG $9,259 
113 12/18/2019 CREE $8,388 
114 12/19/2019 NTAP   
115 1/8/2020 FDX $6,263 
116 1/9/2020 PINS $10,503 
117 1/10/2020 WYNN $24,842 
118 1/14/2020 COF $27,208 
119 1/14/2020 UBER $8,350 

        
  Total   $1,125,263 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00026-RWS   Document 1   Filed 02/16/23   Page 18 of 18