Which members of Congress have faced insider trading investigations since 2000 and what charges were brought against them?

1. What the law says and why prosecutions are hard

The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012 declared members of Congress subject to federal insider‑trading rules and tightened disclosure deadlines, but enforcement is weak: fines are small (often $200) and proving a member used nonpublic, office‑derived information is legally and constitutionally difficult — in part because of Speech or Debate and the risk of exposing classified material ^{[5] [1] [6]}. Legal scholars and watchdogs highlight that the misappropriation theory and evidentiary burdens make criminal prosecution of lawmakers rare ^{[7] [6]}.

2. What investigators and reporters have documented since 2000

Journalists and watchdogs have cataloged thousands of congressional trades that raise conflict‑of‑interest questions. A New York Times investigation found roughly 3,700 transactions in 2019–2021 that “posed potential conflicts,” and Business Insider and others identified dozens of STOCK Act reporting violations ^{[8] [3]}. Campaign Legal Center and other groups describe recurring late disclosures and nominal penalties, treating transparency as insufficient to prevent possible misuse of privileged information ^{[9] [1]}.

3. High‑profile probes and their outcomes

Pandemic‑period and 2020‑era trading triggered multiple inquiries. Numerous senators faced allegations over early‑2020 trades, and then‑Senator Richard Burr’s 2020 trading drew FBI and congressional attention — but available sources stress that, in many high‑profile cases, investigations closed without criminal charges under the STOCK Act ^{[2] [4]}. Wikipedia’s summary of the 2020 congressional insider‑trading scandal states “no charges were brought against anyone and all investigations … are closed” ^[4].

4. Where counts of “violations” differ from criminal charges

Reporting often conflates ethics violations, late filing penalties and allegations of trading on privileged information; these are distinct from criminal indictments. News outlets have identified dozens of members who failed to timely report trades or who raised ethical concerns — outcomes typically involve disclosure corrections, small fines, or ethics inquiries rather than criminal prosecution ^{[3] [6] [10]}.

5. Recent political context and reform pressure

Renewed market shocks and controversial policy announcements in 2024–2025 (for example, tariff policy reversals) escalated calls from both parties for SEC or congressional probes and sharper rules; bipartisan bills in 2025 sought outright bans on individual stock trading by lawmakers or stronger divestment/blind‑trust rules ^{[11] [12] [13]}. Advocacy groups and journalists argue these reforms respond to evidence of repeated disclosure failures and apparent returns that outpaced market benchmarks ^{[9] [14]}.

6. What the sources do — and do not — list

Available sources document many investigations, STOCK Act reporting violations and ethics complaints, and they cite repeated examples of suspicious timing; however, the materials you provided repeatedly state that prosecutions under the STOCK Act have not occurred, and they do not present a list of members who were criminally charged for insider trading since 2000 ^{[1] [2] [4]}. If you want a name‑by‑name list of members who faced formal criminal charges, available sources do not mention such a roster.

7. How to interpret the record and next steps

The record in provided reporting shows systemic transparency and enforcement gaps: lots of suspicious trades, many investigations and policy debates, but almost no criminal prosecutions under the STOCK Act ^{[1] [9]}. For a concrete, sourced list of individual members who were formally indicted or convicted, request targeted searches of prosecution records or source lists; the current reporting suggests the better documented metric is STOCK Act violations, late disclosures and ethics probes rather than criminal charges ^{[3] [2]}.