How Jane Street co-founder landed in a coup controvesy
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
New York-based trading firm Jane Street Capital was recently barred from the Indian securities market by markets regulator Sebi which allegeed the company used its trading strategies to manipulate stock market, leading to losses for millions of retail investors. Jane Street has rejected the allegation. This is not the first controversy the unusually secretive trading company has run into.In June, the quiet, secretive world of high-frequency trading was rocked by revelations that Robert Granieri , a low-profile co-founder of Jane Street Capital, was financially linked to an alleged coup attempt in South Sudan. Granieri, a reclusive but powerful figure in finance, claimed he had been duped. But this revelation threw an uncomfortable spotlight on both Granieri and Jane Street Capital, the enigmatic firm he helped create and still influences.At the heart of the controversy is Peter Ajak , a Harvard Fellow and economist, who is now being prosecuted in the US for allegedly orchestrating a scheme to overthrow South Sudan's government and install himself as leader. US prosecutors allege that Granieri, perhaps unwittingly, bankrolled part of this operation. Federal prosecutors in Arizona first charged Ajak and activist Abraham Keech in March 2024 with conspiring to illegally export arms to South Sudan, their home country, to overthrow its government. Both have pleaded not guilty."The indictment reads like a cinematic plot: A Harvard Fellow and another activist allegedly wanted to buy AK-47s, Stinger missiles and grenades to topple South Sudan's government. What they lacked was enough cash," wrote Bloomberg in June.Granieri's defense is straightforward: he believed he was funding a humanitarian initiative aimed at promoting democracy and economic growth in the war-ravaged East African nation. He claims Ajak misrepresented the true intent of the project.As reported by the New York Post in June, Granieri allegedly provided $7 million in two payments after meeting Ajak in February 2024 at a Midtown Manhattan condominium, prosecutors said. Ajak's lawyers stated in a May court filing, which was reviewed by The Post and first reported by Bloomberg, that Granieri's financing was 'vital to the plan". They claimed in a court document that without his support, the alleged conspiracy would have been impossible. The attorney for the Jane Street founder, whose firm had hired now-convicted fraudster and former FTX CEO Bankman-Fried in 2013, claimed he was misled by Ajak, whom he believed was a human rights activist. 'Granieri is a longtime supporter of human rights causes,' his lawyer was quoted by Bloomberg as saying. 'In this case, the person Rob thought was a human rights activist defrauded Rob and lied about his intentions.'The New York Post further reported that the case also references chess champion Garry Kasparov, though he is not named as a defendant nor accused of any wrongdoing, for allegedly connecting Ajak with Granieri through their shared work with the Human Rights Foundation. Ajak, a former child soldier who resettled in the US, studied at Harvard's Kennedy School and worked as a World Bank economist before becoming a South Sudanese opposition activist. He and Keech allegedly met with an undercover agent and inspected weapons in a Phoenix warehouse before their arrest, the May 29 motion said. Defense attorneys allege US authorities were aware of the plan, citing a 'public authority' defense and claiming that the State Department told Ajak in October 2023 it would not support non-democratic regime change. They also accused prosecutors of selectively targeting Ajak and Keech, both black men, while sparing Granieri and Kasparov.While the legal system will eventually determine the extent of Granieri's culpability, the South Sudan controversy marked a rare public misstep for Granieri and Jane Street Capital. For a firm that has thrived on discretion and outsmarting rivals in silence, the spotlight must have been uncomfortable.Founded in 2000, Jane Street Capital is a global proprietary trading firm operates across a range of asset classes, including ETFs, equities, bonds and cryptocurrencies. It has earned a reputation for being both highly profitable and fiercely secretive. With headquarters in New York and offices in many countries, Jane Street is a dominant force in the world of quantitative finance. It is known for hiring elite mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists, and cultivating a culture more akin to a university research department than a traditional trading floor.What sets Jane Street apart is its organizational structure. There is no CEO. Instead, it functions as a kind of technocratic republic, where around 40 senior partners run the firm collectively. Among them, Granieri, the last remaining co-founder still active in the firm, is considered first among equals. Unlike other Wall Street firms that engage with media, public investors, and regulatory frameworks in a highly visible way, Jane Street tends to shun attention. Even internally, information flows are tightly controlled. This secrecy has allowed Jane Street to build advanced trading systems and algorithms without interference or scrutiny.While allegations against Granieri put it in headlines in June, soon it was hit by a far bigger controversy when Sebi accused it of stock manipulation. Indian regulators have opened a broader probe into Jane Street's activities, while the company denied any wrong-doing on its part. The ban came after an unusually volatile quarter, where Jane Street reportedly made record profits during a spike in global tariffs. Its revenues rivaled those of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley . That kind of financial firepower has always kept Jane Street in regulators' crosshairs, but this time, global scrutiny is escalating.The controversies come at a time when Jane Street Capital is joining the big league. Its net trading revenues hit $20.5 billion last year, up from $2.1 billion in 2019. In the first quarter of 2025, its net trading revenues hit $7.2 billion, surpassing those of Morgan Stanley and within touching distance of Goldman Sachs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
23 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
A federal judge on Friday (July 25, 2025) blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen States remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The States have argued Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Lawyers for the government had argued Mr. Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. Mr. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Mr. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Mr. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent on Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday (July 23, 2025), a San Francisco-based appeals court found the President's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by States. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Mr. Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Mr. Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost States funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Mr. Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
Economic Times
23 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Donald Trump vs U.S. Supreme Court - Full list of cases involving President before top court
Live Events Who is President of USA? President of USA is Donald Trump. When did Donald Trump take over as the US President? Donald Trump took over as the US President in January, 2025 (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The U.S. Supreme Court has acted in a series of cases involving challenges to executive orders signed by President Donald Trump and actions by his administration since he returned to office in January. These cases have involved his move to restrict automatic birthright citizenship, deportations, protected status for certain migrants, a transgender military ban, firings of federal workers and certain agency officials, dismantling the Education Department, cuts to teacher training and medical research grants, payments to foreign aid organizations and access to Social Security is a look at these CITIZENSHIP The justices on June 27 curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies in a ruling in the legal fight over Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The ruling did not let Trump's birthright citizenship order go into effect immediately, directing lower courts that blocked it to reconsider the scope of their orders. The ruling also did not address the order's legality. The decision granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out."No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder.'THIRD COUNTRY' DEPORTATIONS The court on June 23 cleared the way for Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. The court granted the administration's request to lift a judicial order requiring that migrants set for deportation to so-called "third countries" get a "meaningful opportunity" to tell U.S. officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination, while a legal challenge plays out. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had issued the order on April 18, finding that the administration's policy likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Immigrant rights groups had filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants challenging the SUDAN DEPORTATIONS The court on July 3 lifted limits Murphy had imposed to protect eight men who the administration sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan as part of its policy of deportations to "third countries." The court granted a Justice Department request to clarify that its June 23 decision on the matter also extended to the judge's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South IMMIGRATION 'PAROLE' The court on May 30 let Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States. The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while a legal challenge plays parole is a form of temporary permission under U.S. law to be in the country for "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," allowing recipients to live and work in the United States. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called "expedited removal."PROTECTED STATUS FOR VENEZUELAN MIGRANTS The court on May 19 allowed the administration to end temporary protected status that was granted to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans in the United States by Biden. It granted a Justice Department request to lift U.S. District Judge Edward Chen's order that had halted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's decision to terminate deportation protection conferred to Venezuelans under the temporary protected status, or TPS, program while the administration pursues an appeal. The program is a humanitarian designation under U.S. law for countries stricken by war, natural disaster or other catastrophes, giving recipients living in the United States deportation protection and access to work had ruled that Noem violated a federal law that governs the actions of federal agencies. The judge also said the administration's portrayal of the whole Venezuelan TPS population as criminals was "baseless and smacks of racism."DEPORTATION OF VENEZUELANS The court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The justices granted a request by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing the migrants to maintain the halt on the removals for now. The action came after the court ordered on April 19 a temporary stop to the administration's deportations of dozens of migrants being held at a detention center in Texas. The Supreme Court placed limits on April 7 on how deportations under the Alien Enemies Act may occur even as the legality of that law's use for this purpose is being contested. The administration has described the Venezuelans as members of the Tren de Aragua criminal gang, which the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Family members and lawyers for the migrants have disputed this DEPORTED SALVADORAN MAN The court on April 10 directed the administration to facilitate the return to the United States of a Salvadoran man who the U.S. government has acknowledged was deported in error to El Salvador. The Justice Department had asked the justices to throw out an April 4 order by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis requiring the administration to "facilitate and effectuate" the return of Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland and whose wife and young child are U.S. citizens. Abrego had challenged the legality of his deportation. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on June 6 that Abrego had been flown back to the United States and would face criminal charges of transporting illegal immigrants. Abrego has pleaded not was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers on March 12 and questioned about alleged affiliation with the criminal gang MS-13, which the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. His lawyers have denied the alleged gang affiliation. He was deported on March 15 on one of three deportation flights to El Salvador that also included Venezuelan MILITARY BAN The court on May 6 permitted Trump's administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, letting the armed forces discharge thousands of current transgender troops and reject new recruits while legal challenges play out. The court granted the Justice Department's request to lift U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle's nationwide order blocking the military from carrying out Trump's had found that Trump's order likely violates the Constitution's Fifth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. The Justice Department had said Settle usurped the authority of the government's branch of government - headed by Trump - to determine who may serve in the military. In the case before Settle, seven active-duty transgender troops, a transgender man seeking to enlist and a civil rights advocacy group sued over the FEDERAL LAYOFFS The justices on July 8 cleared the way for the administration to pursue mass government job cuts and the sweeping downsizing of numerous agencies. At the administration's request, the justices lifted U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's May 22 order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called "reductions in force" while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. Illston wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSIONERS The court on July 23 let Trump remove three Democratic members of the government's top consumer product safety watchdog, boosting his power over federal agencies set up by Congress to be independent from presidential control. It lifted U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox's order that had blocked Trump from dismissing three Consumer Product Safety Commission members appointed by Biden while a legal challenge to their removal proceeds. Maddox had ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in firing Commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka the Supreme Court indicated that the administration was likely to show that the president is empowered by the Constitution to remove members of the commission. In a dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said the decision "all but overturned" a 1935 Supreme Court precedent ensuring job protections for certain agency BOARD OFFICIALS The court on May 22 allowed Trump to keep two Democratic members of federal labor boards away from their posts while their challenge to his firing of them proceeds. The court temporarily blocked orders by two separate judges that had shielded Cathy Harris from being dismissed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from being removed from the National Labor Relations Board before their terms expire. Both were appointed to their posts by firings were part of Trump's efforts to bring under his sway federal agencies meant by Congress to be independent from presidential control. The May 22 decision also addressed fears voiced by critics that allowing the firings of Wilcox and Harris would jeopardize the independence of the Federal Reserve. "We disagree," the court stated, calling the Fed "a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity."FIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES The justices on April 8 blocked a judge's order for Trump's administration to rehire thousands of fired employees. The court put on hold U.S. Judge William Alsup's March 13 injunction requiring six federal agencies to reinstate thousands of recently hired probationary employees while litigation challenging the legality of the dismissals continues. Alsup's ruling had applied to probationary employees at the U.S. Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior and Treasury. Probationary workers typically have less than a year of service in their current roles, though some are longtime federal employees serving in new DEPARTMENT DISMANTLING The court on July 14 cleared the way for the administration to dismantle the Department of Education, part of Trump's bid to shrink the federal government's role in education in favor of more control by the states. The justices lifted U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's order that had reinstated nearly 1,400 department workers affected by mass layoffs and blocked the administration from transferring key functions to other federal agencies. A legal challenge is continuing to play out. The department was created by a law passed by Congress in RESEARCH GRANTS The administration asked the court on July 24 to allow the government to proceed with sweeping cuts to U.S. National Institutes of Health grants as part of Trump's crackdown on diversity initiatives. It asked the justices to lift U.S. District Judge William Young's June ruling that halted the plan as a violation of federal law and required the government to reinstate access to the grant funds. Young acted in a legal challenge by researchers and 16 U.S. states, led by Democratic-governed Massachusetts. The NIH is the world's largest funder of biomedical TRAINING GRANTS The justices on April 4 let Trump's administration proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants - part of his crackdown on diversity initiatives. The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's March 10 order requiring the Department of Education to reinstate in eight Democratic-led states funding for grants under two teacher training programs while a legal challenge by the states states sued after the department announced that it had cut $600 million in teacher training funds that were promoting what it called "divisive ideologies" including diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, or DEI. The grant programs were established to help support institutions that recruit and train educators in a bid to address critical teacher shortages, especially in rural and underserved SECURITY DATA The court on June 6 permitted the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems. At the Justice Department's request, the justices put on hold U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" in data such as medical and financial records while a legal challenge plays out. DOGE had been spearheaded by Elon Musk before the billionaire left the government and had a falling out with Trump. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop DOGE members from accessing some of the Social Security Administration's most sensitive data TRANSPARENCY The justices on June 6 extended their block on judicial orders requiring DOGE to turn over records to a government watchdog advocacy group that sought details on its operations. The court on May 23 had issued a temporary pause. The justices put on hold U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper's orders for DOGE to respond requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information. Cooper had concluded that DOGE likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. The administration contends DOGE is an advisory entity not subject to TO FOREIGN AID GROUPS The court on March 5 declined to let Trump's administration withhold payment to foreign aid organizations for work they already performed for the government as he moves to pull the plug on American humanitarian projects around the world. The court upheld U.S. District Judge Amir Ali's order that had called on the administration to promptly release funding to contractors and recipients of grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department for their past organizations accused Trump in lawsuits of exceeding his authority under federal law and the U.S. Constitution by effectively dismantling an independent federal agency in USAID and canceling spending authorized by WATCHDOG AGENCY HEAD The court on February 21 declined to let Trump immediately fire the head of a federal watchdog agency after a judge's order had temporarily blocked the ouster. The court postponed action on the Justice Department's request to lift U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 12 order that had temporarily blocked Trump's removal of Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel. Dellinger on March 6 ended his legal challenge to his firing after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit allowed Trump's action to stand. The independent agency protects government whistleblowers.
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Myanmar refugees to face deportation if convicted of drug offences: Mizo group
Aizawl: Young Mizo Association (YMA) sub-headquarters in Champhai district, bordering Myanmar, has issued new directives to Myanmar refugees residing in the area. The guidelines state that any refugee convicted of drug trafficking or possession will be deported to Myanmar after serving their jail term. This week, the YMA sub-headquarters outlined rules prohibiting refugees from forming associations or groups based on sub-tribes. The move aims to ensure uniform guidelines and equal access to support and maintenance. "They (refugees) should enrol themselves in the respective YMA units of their localities or villages and submit their Myanmar identity cards to YMA leaders. Whoever violates the local social guidelines are liable to be punished," the directives said. If a refugee intends to relocate, the current YMA unit must notify the new unit in advance. Refugees are barred from running businesses that require govt permits or from owning land or buildings. On Wednesday, the Aizawl-based NGO coordination committee — a coalition of major civil society groups and student organisations — expressed deep concern over the emergence of sub-tribe sentiments among refugees amid ongoing ethnic conflicts in Myanmar and Manipur. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Up to 70% off | Libas Purple Days Sale Libas Undo At a meeting held in Aizawl, the committee underscored that Mizoram has long been a haven of peaceful coexistence among Zo ethnic tribes. It urged the public and refugees to prevent the rise of divisive, tribe-based thinking that could threaten state harmony. The statement follows recent armed clashes in Myanmar's Chin state between Chin sub-tribes, which forced hundreds of refugees into Mizoram. In neighbouring Manipur, tensions remain high, primarily involving the Meitei community and the Kuki and Zomi groups — ethnic communities closely tied to the Mizos. Past episodes have shown that political divisions can cause friction even between culturally aligned groups like the Kuki and Zomi. Champhai district police officials said nearly 4,000 refugees who had entered Zokhawthar village — fleeing violence in Khawmawi, Rihkhawdar, and nearby Chin state villages — have now returned, following signs of peace.
