FY2025 Statistics Report Highlights the SEC’s Securities Fraud Enforcement Priorities

The SEC’s Enforcement Division recently published a press release touting its successful enforcement efforts during the 2025 fiscal year. The press release and accompanying statistics report highlight the SEC’s enforcement priorities heading into 2027—providing critical insight for companies, firms, and individuals that are subject to the SEC’s oversight.

Each year, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issues several reports detailing its enforcement efforts and priorities. Recently, the SEC’s Enforcement Division published a press release announcing its enforcement results for fiscal year (FY) 2025. The press release is accompanied by an addendum with statistics highlighting the Enforcement Division’s areas of focus over the prior fiscal year.

While the press release and addendum are backward-looking, they nonetheless provide valuable insight into the SEC’s current enforcement priorities. For companies, firms, and individuals that are subject to the SEC’s oversight, knowing where the SEC is focusing its enforcement efforts is critical for both making informed decisions about compliance and defending against SEC investigations when necessary.

What Are the SEC’s Enforcement Priorities Heading Into 2027?

So, where is the SEC focusing its enforcement efforts heading into 2027? Based on the Enforcement Division’s most-recent data, its current priorities with regard to securities fraud enforcement include:

1. Fraudulent Securities Offerings

Nearly a third (29%) of the SEC’s administrative and civil enforcement actions in FY2025 focused on fraudulent securities offerings. This is an extremely broad category, so it makes sense that we saw a lot of enforcement activity in this area. While the Enforcement Division’s addendum does not provide a comprehensive breakdown of the types of cases that fall into this category, some of the most common types of allegations related to fraudulent securities offerings include:

• Conducting unregistered securities offerings without qualifying for an exemption
• Including false or misleading statements in offering documents
• Omitting material information from offering documents
• Targeting vulnerable populations of investors (i.e., retirees) with high-risk offerings
• Promoting securities offerings with the intent to dump shares in the future (pump-and-dump schemes)

While these (and other) forms of offering-related securities fraud can lead to administrative and civil enforcement proceedings, they can also lead to criminal prosecution in some cases. The Department of Justice (DOJ) pursues criminal charges for securities fraud when warranted, and the DOJ has issued several press releases in 2026 highlighting cases involving charges against individuals accused of perpetrating fraudulent securities offering schemes.

2. Investment Advisor and Investment Company Fraud

Nearly a quarter (24%) of the SEC’s administrative and civil enforcement actions in FY2025 focused on investment advisor and investment company fraud. The Investment Advisor Act of 1940 and Investment Company Act of 1940 both establish extensive compliance obligations, and the SEC has promulgated extensive regulations under these statutes.

In many cases, investment advisors and investment companies targeted in SEC investigations will face other risks as well. Along with the risk of facing criminal prosecution based on allegations of intentionally defrauding investors, this includes the risk of facing civil liability in FINRA arbitration. While evidence of intent to defraud is generally required in order for criminal charges to be warranted, negligent acts and omissions can be enough to trigger administrative and civil penalties in SEC enforcement proceedings and civil liability in investor arbitration.  

3. Insider Trading

Insider trading cases accounted for approximately 10% of the SEC’s administrative and civil enforcement actions in FY 2025. Similar to fraudulent securities offerings and investment advisory services, insider trading can also be prosecuted criminally depending on the circumstances involved. In insider trading cases, the DOJ can pursue criminal charges based on either “knowing” conduct under the federal securities fraud statute (18 USC Section 1348) or “willful” conduct under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 USC Section 78ff).

The definition of an “insider” under federal law includes not only corporate executives and employees, but also advisors, family members, and other individuals who have access to material nonpublic information (MNPI). In cases that involve sharing MNPI which is subsequently used to execute unlawful trades, both parties (the “tipper” and the “tippee”) can face administrative, civil, or criminal liability.

4. Corporate Reporting, Auditing, and Accounting Violations

Corporate reporting, auditing, and accounting violations also rank high on the SEC’s list of enforcement priorities. This includes violations of the Securities Act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), among other statutes. The SEC prioritizes ensuring that investors have access to the information they need to make informed decisions, and reporting, auditing, and accounting violations directly conflict with the SEC’s efforts to promote fair and transparent markets.

Here too, while administrative and civil penalties can be substantial, knowing and willful violations can also lead to joint efforts by the SEC and DOJ to pursue criminal charges in federal court. In all cases, securities issuers that are facing scrutiny for possible reporting, auditing, and accounting violations need to work with experienced legal counsel who can help them build and execute comprehensive defense strategies.  

5. Market Manipulation

The SEC has placed increased emphasis on uncovering and putting a stop to market manipulation in recent years. With the rise of prediction markets, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is prioritizing these cases as well. Notably, while market manipulation cases accounted for just five percent of the SEC’s administrative and civil enforcement actions in FY2025, these cases in particular are likely to be criminal in nature.

6. Broker-Dealer Fraud

The same is true of cases involving broker-dealer fraud. Broker-dealer fraud can leave investors facing substantial losses—often with no viable option for recovering their losses other than to pursue a civil lawsuit or file for FINRA arbitration. Along with the SEC’s Enforcement Division, the DOJ’s Securities, Market, and Private Fraud Unit prioritizes these cases as well, and criminal charges under 15 USC Section 78ff or 18 USC Section 1348 can expose broker-dealers to multi-million-dollar fines and decades of federal prison time.

7. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Violations

The SEC’s website states that, “[e]nforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) continues to be a high priority area.” FCPA cases fall at the intersection of securities law compliance and federal anti-bribery compliance; and, as a result, these cases often have criminal implications as well. While the SEC’s Enforcement Division pursued just a handful of administrative and civil FCPA enforcement cases in FY2025, the DOJ’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit routinely pursues cases in this area

What Should You Do if You Have Concerns About Facing Scrutiny from the SEC?

For corporate executives, broker-dealers, and others who have concerns about facing scrutiny from the SEC, a proactive approach to compliance and risk management is essential. Companies and firms that are not in compliance should work with their counsel to come into compliance promptly, and they should make informed decisions about whether any voluntary disclosures may be required.

If you aren’t sure whether your company or firm is fully compliant with all applicable federal statutory and regulatory requirements, the first step will be to conduct a comprehensive compliance assessment. This assessment should take place promptly, and it should be conducted with the protection of the attorney-client privilege. This will help ensure that if any compliance concerns come to light, the findings of the assessment itself will not be discoverable in the event of an SEC or DOJ inquiry.

Of course, in this scenario, assessing compliance is just the first step. If a company’s or firm’s compliance assessment uncovers any oversights or other deficiencies, the next step will be to implement all necessary compliance policies, protocols, and procedures. Going forward, it will also be necessary to proactively monitor compliance on an ongoing basis to ensure that any enforcement concerns can be addressed promptly.

What Should You Do if You Are Facing an SEC Investigation?

When facing an SEC investigation, it is critical to know what (if anything) the SEC’s investigators are going to find. With this in mind, promptly conducting an attorney-privileged compliance assessment is a key first step in this scenario as well.

As discussed above, SEC investigations can lead to a wide range of allegations—and these allegations can be either administrative, civil, or criminal in nature. Crucially, even if an SEC investigation is not focused on substantiating criminal charges initially, the investigation could still result in a referral to the DOJ if the SEC’s investigators uncover evidence (or apparent evidence) of knowledge, willfulness, or intent. As a result, regardless of how an SEC investigation begins, it is imperative to execute a forward-thinking defense strategy that takes into account all relevant risks in light of the circumstances at hand.

Contact the Federal Securities Fraud Defense Attorneys at Oberheiden PC

Oberheiden PC is a securities fraud compliance and defense law firm that represents corporate, institutional, and individual clients in all securities-related matters. If you have questions or concerns about facing scrutiny from the SEC, we invite you to get in touch. Call us at 888-680-1745 or tell us how we can reach you online to arrange a confidential consultation with one of our senior securities fraud defense attorneys.