Trading giant Susquehanna Investment Group said it was attempting to unmask the identities of individuals it claims made at least $100 million trading on inside information about a Chinese government crackdown on cross-border brokerages last month.
The Pennsylvania-based market-maker, which says it was the counterparty on most of the alleged insider trades, sued 100 John Doe defendants in Manhattan federal court on Monday. Susquehanna is seeking to recover more than $70 million it says it lost to what it believes is one of the largest insider-trading schemes in recent memory, Bloomberg reported.
While it’s unusual for a major Wall Street firm to sue as a victim of insider trading - which is normally policed by the Securities and Exchange Commission and federal prosecutors - in suing the dozens of unknown traders, aka "John Does", Susquehanna is using a tactic sometimes employed by the SEC to seek information it hopes will identify the alleged insider traders.
According to Susquehanna, many of the trades were made from accounts at Interactive Brokers Group Inc., as well as the platforms of two firms targeted in the Chinese crackdown, Futu Holdings and Up Fintech’s Tiger Brokers (we discussed this in May in "China Launches Crackdown On Cross-Border Stock Selling To Block Capital Outflows").
Susquehanna is seeking an order freezing certain accounts at those brokerages and authorizing subpoenas of them.
Susquehanna, which is one of the largest US market-makers and is active in options, stocks, energy, bonds and foreign exchange markets, said in an SEC filing that its equity positions in the first quarter totaled more than $893 billion. The closely held company based in the Philadelphia suburbs has made its co-founder Jeff Yass one of the richest people in the world with a fortune estimated at $92 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
Susquehanna’s allegations focus on 200,000 short-dated put option bets placed in the two weeks before the Chinese government’s May 22 announcement that it would punish firms helping mainland Chinese clients illegally invest overseas. The statement was released by eight regulators, including the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the central bank and the public security ministry.
Almost simultaneously, regulators released a statement singling out Futu, Tiger and the unlisted Long Bridge Securities for operating in China without onshore licenses. Futu and Up Fintech’s shares plummeted in response.
In its suit, Susquehanna alleges several accounts engaged in a pattern of “high risk, high reward trading” designed to take advantage of the projected drops. In one example, a trader purchased the option to sell Futu shares at $102.45 — down from $124.58 — up to a week after the Chinese government’s announcement.
There was “powerful evidence” the traders were using material non-public information to inform their well-timed bets, Susquehanna alleges. It said the tips could have come from Chinese securities regulators or personnel at Futu or Up Fintech.
The traders collectively purchased $12 million in options, yielding a profit of more than $100 million and a return of more than 900%.
“By way of comparison, Raj Rajaratnam’s infamous insider trading scheme at Galleon Management yielded only approximately $53 million in profits,” Susquehanna said in its complaint, referring to the hedge fund manager convicted in 2011.
According to Bloomberg, the alleged insider traders’ use of Interactive Brokers could prove awkward for that firm. The suit doesn’t accuse Interactive Brokers of wrongdoing, but founder Thomas Peterffy, also one of the world’s richest men with an estimated $104 billion fortune, is an outspoken supporter of legalizing insider trading.
“I’m in favor of not having any rules against insider trading. I would like all the information out there as soon as it’s available,” he said in an recent interview on Bloomberg. “Because look, as a society, we are better off knowing as soon as possible anything that is knowable.”
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 15:00Taiwan has intensified its efforts to stop advanced AI hardware from reaching China, carrying out raids at the local offices of Super Micro Computer and several businesses connected to an investigation into the movement of servers equipped with NVIDIA chips, according to Bloomberg.
Investigators searched multiple business locations and the homes of six individuals as part of the inquiry. While prosecutors did not publicly identify those involved, a source familiar with the matter said Super Micro's Taiwan office was among the locations searched. The company said it is fully cooperating with investigators and emphasized that it works to safeguard its technology and ensure its products are sold in compliance with applicable laws. Shares fell about 8% following the announcement.
Bloomberg writes that the probe also reached Chief Telecom and Albatron Technology. Both companies acknowledged the searches, saying day-to-day operations were unaffected, although Albatron's shares dropped sharply.
The case marks another step in Taiwan's broader campaign to prevent restricted AI technology from being diverted to China. Earlier this year, authorities arrested three suspects accused of using fraudulent export paperwork involving Super Micro servers loaded with Nvidia AI processors. Officials believe at least one shipment ultimately made its way to China through Japan, while dozens of additional servers were intercepted before they could leave Taiwan.
Taiwan currently lacks a law that specifically criminalizes exporting AI chips to China, limiting prosecutors to pursuing related offenses such as document fraud. Lawmakers are now considering tougher export rules that would make such shipments illegal and give authorities stronger enforcement powers as Taiwan moves to more closely mirror U.S. restrictions on advanced semiconductor technology.
The latest developments also add to the uncertainty surrounding Super Micro.
Ever since Hindenburg Research published its report less than two years ago, "Super Micro: Fresh Evidence Of Accounting Manipulation, Sibling Self-Dealing And Sanctions Evasion At This AI High Flyer," the company has struggled to shake a steady stream of damaging headlines.
The short seller accused Super Micro of accounting irregularities, undisclosed related-party transactions involving family members, export control concerns, and other governance failures, allegations the company has disputed.
Since then, Super Micro has faced delayed financial filings, scrutiny from regulators and most recently one of its co-founders charged in a scheme to divert roughly $2.5 billion in advanced Nvidia chips to China, according to an indictment unsealed earlier this year.
SMCI is the infinite money glitch of fraud https://t.co/KsQ6bDtinh
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 29, 2026 Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 14:45