5 C.F.R. § 2635.703

Use of nonpublic information

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Prohibition. Employees may not engage in financial transactions using nonpublic information, nor allow the improper use of nonpublic information to further their own private interests or those of another, whether through advice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure.

(b) Definition of nonpublic information. For purposes of this section, nonpublic information is information that the employee gains by reason of Federal employment and that the employee knows or reasonably should know has not been made available to the general public. It includes information that the employee knows or reasonably should know:

(1) Is routinely exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552 or otherwise protected from disclosure by statute, Executive order, or regulation;

(2) Is designated as confidential by an agency; or

(3) Has not actually been disseminated to the general public and is not authorized to be made available to the public on request.

Example 1 to paragraph (b): A Navy employee learns in the course of official duties that a small corporation will be awarded a Navy contract for electrical test equipment. The employee may not take any action to purchase stock in the corporation or its suppliers, and may not advise friends or relatives to do so until after public announcement of the award. Such actions could violate Federal securities statutes as well as this section.

Example 2 to paragraph (b): A General Services Administration employee involved in evaluating proposals for a construction contract cannot disclose the terms of a competing proposal to a friend employed by a company bidding on the work. Prior to award of the contract, bid or proposal information is nonpublic information specifically protected by 41 U.S.C. 2102.

Example 3 to paragraph (b): An employee is a member of a source selection team assigned to review the proposals submitted by several companies in response to an Army solicitation for spare parts. As a member of the evaluation team, the employee has access to proprietary information regarding the production methods of Alpha Corporation, one of the competitors. The employee may not use that information to assist Beta Company in drafting a proposal to compete for a Navy spare parts contract. The Federal Acquisition Regulation in 48 CFR parts 3, 14, and 15 restricts the release of information related to procurements and other contractor information that must be protected under 18 U.S.C. 1905 and 41 U.S.C. 2102.

Example 4 to paragraph (b): An employee of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission inadvertently includes a document that is exempt from disclosure with a group of documents released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Regardless of whether the document is used improperly, the employee's disclosure does not violate this section because it was not a knowing unauthorized disclosure made for the purpose of furthering a private interest.

Example 5 to paragraph (b): An employee of the Army Corps of Engineers is actively involved in the activities of an organization whose goals relate to protection of the environment. The employee may not, other than as permitted by agency procedures, give the organization or a newspaper reporter nonpublic information about long-range plans to build a particular dam.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Chuyon Yon Hong v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Chuyon Yon Hong v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “That regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703 (a), forbids “the improper use of nonpublic information to further [an employee’s] own private interest .”

United States v. Blaszczak, 947 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “Although Worrall does not raise a vagueness challenge himself, it bears noting that CMS employees were subject to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703 (a) (the text of which was introduced into evidence at trial), which forbids the “improper use of nonpublic information to further [the…”

United States of Am., Ex Rel. Mary L. Holmes, & United States of Am., Movant-Appellee v. Consum. Ins. Grp. John R. Hightower, 318 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2003). “” 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703 (b). . Indeed, according to the majority opinion, it appears that Congress intended to authorize a federal employee to "cash in” whenever her job duties bring evidence of fraud across her desk — even if her job is to investigate fraud.”

United States Ex Rel. Holmes v. Consum. Ins. Grp., 279 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2002). “” 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703 (b). . We contrast our reasoning here with the primary policy arguments that the Eleventh Circuit rejected in Williams involving administrative difficulties — specifically, interference with the government’s case and premature disclosure of allegations to…”

Jacobs, Daniel S. v. Schiffer, Lois J., 204 F.3d 259 (D.C. Cir. 2000). “§ 1905 (1996); an ethics regulation concerning use of non-public information by a government employee, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703 (1996); the so-called "Touhy” regulations governing production or disclosure in federal and state proceedings, 28 C.”

Jacobs v. Schiffer, 47 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 3105 ); 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703 (prohibiting a government employee from using nonpublic information for private gain); 28 C.”

Anthony Gagliardo v. Dep't of Transp. (MSPB 2023). · cites it 3× “He also contends that the agency did not prove that he violated 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703 (a), which, he asserts, is the regulation at issue in this specification, because it did not show that the contractor used the information and opinion that the appellant had provided to him.”

Hong v. Mukasey (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “That regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703 (a), forbids “the improper use of nonpublic information to further [an employee’s] own pri- vate interest .”

Velasquez v. Grisham (D.N.M. 2019). “702 Use of public office for private gain; (iii) 5 CFR § 2635.703 Use of nonpublic information; (iv) 5 CFR § 2635.”

Spyropoulos v. Ssa (Fed. Cir. 2025). “Spyropoulos furnished this information to “further his own private interests in violation of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703 (a), (b).” Id. The Board did not err in upholding this finding.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.